Water Safety Plan

Water safety
plan manual
Step-by-step risk management
for drinking-water suppliers
Second edition
Water safety
plan manual
Step-by-step risk management
for drinking-water suppliers
Second edition
Water safety plan manual: step-by-step risk management for drinking-water suppliers, second edition
ISBN 978-92-4-006769-1 (electronic version)
ISBN 978-92-4-006770-7 (print version)
© World Health Organization 2023
Some rights reserved. This work is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO licence (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO; https://creativecommons.org/licenses/
by-nc-sa/3.0/igo).
Under the terms of this licence, you may copy, redistribute and adapt the work for non-commercial purposes, provided the work is appropriately cited, as indicated below. In any use of this work,
there should be no suggestion that WHO endorses any specific organization, products or services. The use of the WHO logo is not permitted. If you adapt the work, then you must license your
work under the same or equivalent Creative Commons licence. If you create a translation of this work, you should add the following disclaimer along with the suggested citation: “This translation
was not created by the World Health Organization (WHO). WHO is not responsible for the content or accuracy of this translation. The original English edition shall be the binding and authentic
edition”.
Any mediation relating to disputes arising under the licence shall be conducted in accordance with the mediation rules of the World Intellectual Property Organization (http://www.wipo.int/amc/
en/mediation/rules/).
Suggested citation. Water safety plan manual: step-by-step risk management for drinking-water suppliers, second edition. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2023. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0
IGO.
Cataloguing-in-Publication (CIP) data. CIP data are available at http://apps.who.int/iris.
Sales, rights and licensing. To purchase WHO publications, see http://apps.who.int/bookorders. To submit requests for commercial use and queries on rights and licensing, see https://www.
who.int/copyright.
Third-party materials. If you wish to reuse material from this work that is attributed to a third party, such as tables, figures or images, it is your responsibility to determine whether permission
is needed for that reuse and to obtain permission from the copyright holder. The risk of claims resulting from infringement of any third-party-owned component in the work rests solely with the
user.
General disclaimers. The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of WHO concerning
the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Dotted and dashed lines on maps represent approximate
border lines for which there may not yet be full agreement.
The mention of specific companies or of certain manufacturers’ products does not imply that they are endorsed or recommended by WHO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not
mentioned. Errors and omissions excepted, the names of proprietary products are distinguished by initial capital letters.
All reasonable precautions have been taken by WHO to verify the information contained in this publication. However, the published material is being distributed without warranty of any kind,
either expressed or implied. The responsibility for the interpretation and use of the material lies with the reader. In no event shall WHO be liable for damages arising from its use.
Design and layout by LT Design.
ii
Contents
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
Abbreviations.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
Glossary of water safety planning terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x
Part I - Getting the most from this manual 1

Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Target audiences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Scope. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Content. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Part II - Water safety planning: an overview and guide to success 7
Water safety planning at a glance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Why practise water safety planning? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
What is needed for water safety planning?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Successful water safety planning practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Part lll - Step-by-step guidance 19
Overview of water safety planning in action. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
MODULE 1 ASSEMBLING THE WSP TEAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

1.1 Why do we need a WSP Team? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
1.2 Assembling the WSP Team – key actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
1.3 Recording the outputs from Module 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
1.4 Challenges and practical solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Additional guidance for Module 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
MODULE 2 DESCRIBING THE SYSTEM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

2.1 Why do we need a system description?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.2 Describing the system – key actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.3 Recording the outputs from Module 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Additional guidance for Module 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
iii

MODULE 3 IDENTIFYING HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS EVENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.1 Why do we identify hazards and hazardous events? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
3.2 Identifying hazards and hazardous events – key actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
3.3 Recording the outputs from Module 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
3.4 Challenges and practical solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
MODULE 4 VALIDATING EXISTING CONTROL MEASURES AND ASSESSING RISKS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

4.1 Why do we validate existing control measures and assess risks?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
4.2 Validating control measures and assessing risks - key actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
MODULE 5 PLANNING FOR IMPROVEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

5.1 Why do we plan for improvements? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
5.2 Planning for improvement – key actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
MODULE 6 MONITORING CONTROL MEASURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

6.1 Why do we monitor control measures? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
6.2 Monitoring control measures – key actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
6.3 Recording the outputs from Module 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
6.4 Challenges and practical solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72
Additional guidance for Module 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76
MODULE 7 VERIFYING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF WATER SAFETY PLANNING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

7.1 Why do we verify the effectiveness of water safety planning? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78
7.2 Verifying the effectiveness of WSPs – key actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78
Additional guidance for Module 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
iv
MODULE 8 STRENGTHENING MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
8.1 Why do we need management procedures?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
8.2 Strengthening management procedures – key actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .87
MODULE 9 STRENGTHENING WSP SUPPORTING PROGRAMMES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

9.1 Why do we need supporting programmes? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
9.2 Strengthening WSP supporting programmes – key actions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
MODULE 10 REVIEWING AND UPDATING THE WSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

10.1 Why do we need to review and update WSPs? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
10.2 Reviewing and updating the WSP – key actions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107
10.3 Recording the outputs from Module 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .108
Part IV - Toolbox 113

Module 1: WSP team membership and meeting templates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Module 4: Risk assessment table template. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
Module 5: Improvement plan template. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Module 6: Operational monitoring templates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Module 7: Compliance monitoring template.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
Module 8: Management procedure templates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
References 122
Annexes 125
Annex 1: Key changes incorporated into the second edition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Annex 2: Managing WSPs for multiple systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
Annex 3: Integrating WSPs with existing management practices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .129
Annex 4: Single-stage versus dual-stage risk assessment approaches. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
v

Acknowledgements
The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Water Association (IWA) wish to express their appreciation to the numerous contributors who supported
the preparation and development of this publication.
This updated edition was prepared by Darryl Jackson, consultant, Australia; Rory Moses McKeown, WHO, Switzerland; and Angella Rinehold, WHO, Switzerland.
The first edition of this document was co-authored by Jamie Bartram, Lana Corrales, Annette Davison, Dan Deere, David Drury, Bruce Gordon, Guy Howard, Angella
Rinehold and Melita Stevens.
Contributors to the second edition who provided peer review, additional text or insights, and/or participated in meetings include the following.
Rosa María Alcayhuamán Guzmán, Refaat Bani-Khalaf, Matthew Damons, Emanti Management,
Pan American Health Organization, Peru Water Authority of Jordan, Jordan South Africa
Rola Al-Emam, WHO Regional Office for the Eastern Jamie Bartram, Philip Da Souza, formerly Emanti Management,
Mediterranean, Jordan University of Leeds, United Kingdom South Africa
Hadisu Alhassan, Ibrahim Basweti, Dan Deere,

Ghana Water Company Limited, Ghana Ministry of Health, Kenya Water Futures, Australia
Adam Ali, Paul Byleveld, John Dennis,

Ministry of Health, Kenya NSW Health, Australia Environmental Health Consulting NZ, New Zealand
Didier Allély-Fermé, Maria Estela Calderón, Ana Maria de Roda Husman, National Institute for
consultant, Switzerland consultant, Peru Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Netherlands
Brenda Ampomah, Siao Yun Chang, Arnt Diener, formerly

IWA, United Kingdom Public Utilities Board, Singapore WHO Regional Office for Europe, Germany
Maria Sonabel S Anarna, Patrick Collins, Mamadou Djerma,

Department of Health, Philippines Irish Water, Ireland consultant, Burkina Faso
Hamed Bakir, formerly WHO Regional Office for the Katharine Cross, consultant, Rachmawati Sugihhartati Djembarmanah,
Eastern Mediterranean, Jordan Thailand National Institute of Technology (Itenas), Indonesia
vi
Anabelle Edwards, Department for Environment, Richard King, Cristina Maria Martinho,
Food & Rural Affairs, United Kingdom University of Surrey, United Kingdom CMMartinho Consulting, Portugal
Arturo B Fernando, Koji Kosaka, Kizito Masinde,

Local Water Utilities Administration, Philippines National Institute of Public Health, Japan IWA, United Kingdom
Giuliana Ferrero, Waltaji Kutane, Guy Mbayo,

consultant, Netherlands WHO, Mozambique WHO Regional Office for Africa, Congo
Emanuele Ferretti, Pawan Labhasetwar, National Environmental Raquel Mendes,

Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Italy Engineering Research Institute, India consultant, Portugal
Faustina Gomez, John Leamy, Alejo Molinari,

WHO Regional Office for South-East Asia, India Irish Water, Ireland Water and Sanitation Regulatory Agency, Argentina
Jim Graham, Yared Legesse, Teofilo Monteiro,

Ministry of Health, New Zealand consultant, Ethiopia formerly Pan American Health Organization, Peru
María Gunnarsdóttir, Luca Lucentini, Jacqueline Wairimu Muthura,

University of Iceland, Iceland Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Italy consultant, Kenya
Loay Hidmi, Jeanne Luh, formerly University of North Carolina, Saidi Gathu Ngutu,
consultant, Jordan United States of America consultant, Kenya
Alejandro Iriburo, Margaret Macauley, Solomon Nzioka,

Obras Sanitarias del Estado, Uruguay Ghana Water Company Limited, Ghana WHO, Kenya
Asoka Jayaratne, Bonifacio Magtibay, Edema Ojomo, formerly University of North Carolina,
Yarra Valley Water, Australia WHO, Philippines United States of America
Safo Kalandarov, Shamsul Gafur Mahmud, Grace Olutope Oluwasanya,

WHO, Tajikistan WHO, Bangladesh Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta, Nigeria
Susan Kilani, Dominique Maison, Patrick O’Sullivan,

formerly Ministry of Water and Irrigation, Jordan consultant, France Irish Water, Ireland
vii

Gene Peralta, formerly WHO Regional Office for the Patricia Segurado, Mark Summerton,
Western Pacific, Philippines formerly Pan American Health Organization, Peru United Nations Children’s Fund, Jordan
Katharine Pond, Karen Setty, Aquaya, David Sutherland, formerly WHO Regional Office for
University of Surrey, United Kingdom United States of America South-East Asia, India
VR Raman, Mohammad Shakkour, WHO Regional Office for the Aaron Tanner,
Water Aid, India Eastern Mediterranean, Jordan consultant, United Kingdom
Hussain Rasheed, David Sheehan, Harold van den Berg, National Institute for Public
WHO Regional Office for South-East Asia, India Coliban Water, Australia Health and the Environment (RIVM), Netherlands
Bettina Rickert, Raja Ram Pote Shrestha, Sujithra Weragoda,

German Environment Agency, Germany WHO, Nepal Ministry of Water Supply, Sri Lanka
Mohammad Said Al Hmaidi, Water Services Dai Simazaki, Matthew Whitelaw,

Regulatory Council, occupied Palestinian territory, National Institute of Public Health, Japan East Gippsland Water, Australia
including east Jerusalem
Johan Strandberg, Swedish Environmental Research Tom Williams,
Rui Sancho, Institute (IVL), Sweden (formerly WHO, Switzerland) formerly IWA, United Kingdom
Águas do Algarve, Portugal
Pierre Studer, United Nations Children’s Fund,
Oliver Schmoll, United States of America
WHO Regional Office for Europe, Germany
This document also benefited from insights provided by many experts and practitioners, gleaned through interviews conducted by the University of North Carolina,
United States of America.
Development and production of this document were coordinated and managed by Jennifer De France, Rory Moses McKeown and Ashanti Bleich, WHO,
Switzerland, and Brenda Ampomah, IWA, United Kingdom. Bruce Gordon, WHO, Switzerland, provided strategic direction.
WHO gratefully acknowledges the financial support provided by Agence Française de Développement, France; the Australian Government Department of Foreign
Affairs and Trade, Australia; the Directorate General for International Cooperation, Netherlands; the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, United
Kingdom; the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Japan; the United States Agency for International Development, United States of America; the Norwegian
Agency for Development Cooperation, Norway; and the Ministry of Development Cooperation and Humanitarian Affairs, Luxembourg.
IWA gratefully acknowledges the financial support provided by the Water Supply Division of the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Japan.
viii
viii
Abbreviations
E. coli Escherichia coli
ERP emergency response plan
FMECA failure mode, effects and criticality analysis
HAZOP hazard and operability analysis
ISO International Organization for Standardization
IWA International Water Association
NGO nongovernmental organization
SOP standard operating procedure
UV ultraviolet
WHO World Health Organization
WSP water safety plan
ix

Glossary of water safety planning terms
Compliance monitoring: The process of determining compliance with Risk assessment: An evaluation of the significance of a hazardous event.
drinking-water quality regulations and standards.
Risk level: The level of risk assigned based on a risk score (e.g. low, medium,
Control measure: An activity or process to prevent, eliminate or reduce the high).
risk of a hazardous event to an acceptable level.
Risk matrix: A matrix used to calculate the risk score, made up of likelihood
Control measure validation: Obtaining evidence that the control measure can descriptors and severity descriptors.
effectively control the corresponding hazardous event.
Risk score: The score assigned in the risk assessment.
Corrective action: Action taken when operational monitoring indicates that the
control measure is not working as intended. Standard operating procedure: A set of step-by-step instructions to guide
staff when carrying out routine tasks under either normal or incident conditions.
Critical limit: An operational limit that separates acceptable performance from
unacceptable performance of the control measure, triggering corrective action. Supporting programmes: Activities that improve management of drinking-
water supplies that are consistent with the implementation of water safety
Emergency: A serious situation or occurrence for which there is no standard planning. Supporting programmes include general organizational support as
operating procedure in place. Emergencies usually happen unexpectedly, well as specific programmes targeted to particular risks.
requiring immediate and extensive action.
Surveillance: The continuous and vigilant public health assessment and review
Emergency response plan: Steps to guide responses to an emergency. of the safety of a drinking-water supply.
Hazard: A contaminant or condition that may adversely affect the supply of User satisfaction programme: A programme to check whether users are
safe drinking-water. satisfied with the drinking-water supplied.
Hazardous event: An event that results in a hazard being introduced to, or Verification: The process of obtaining evidence that the WSP, as a whole, is
inadequately removed from, the water supply. working effectively to deliver safe drinking-water.
Improvement plan: An action plan for improving the level of control for a Water safety plan (WSP): A proactive risk assessment and risk management
hazardous event, thereby reducing the level of risk. approach to help ensure drinking-water safety, encompassing the entire
drinking-water supply, from catchment to consumer.
Incident: An abnormal event that requires corrective action. An incident
represents some degree of loss in system control that could compromise the WSP audit: An independent and systematic check to confirm that the WSP is
drinking-water supply, or have the potential to escalate to an emergency. complete, adequately implemented and effective.
Operational monitoring plan: A plan to monitor control measures to ensure WSP team: The team that leads the development and ongoing implementation
that they work as intended, and that proper and timely corrective action is taken of the WSP.
when predefined limits are not met.
Risk: The product of the likelihood of occurrence of a hazardous event and its
severity (or consequences).
x
I
PART
Getting the most

from this manual
Introduction
PURPOSE The manual is suitable for all water suppliers – from those developing their first
WSP to those implementing, strengthening or auditing existing WSPs.
This manual supports the management of drinking-water supplies through

water safety planning – a comprehensive risk assessment and risk Readers are strongly encouraged to tailor the guidance presented
in this manual to suit their local context.
management approach to help ensure the safety of a drinking-water supply.
The manual provides practical

guidance, examples and tools Water safety planning is
to support water suppliers in
the most effective means of SCOPE
consistently ensuring the safety
developing and implementing of a drinking-water supply Safe drinking-water management must consider drinking-water quality,
water safety plans (WSPs) to help WHO Guidelines for drinking-water quality
acceptability and quantity in the context of public health protection. In this
protect the health of all users.
manual, the term “safety” encompasses these three elements.
TARGET AUDIENCES Although the principles in this manual can be broadly applied to all types of
drinking-water supplies, the guidance is primarily intended for piped water
supplies that are professionally managed (by a water supplier or equivalent
The target audiences for this manual are:
management entity).1
D water suppliers – that is, those who own or operate drinking-water
The guidance may be applied to existing drinking-water supplies, or adapted
supplies;
for water supplies that are in the planning stage before construction.
D organizations supporting water safety planning programmes,
including government agencies (e.g. agencies responsible for public
health, or regulation and surveillance of drinking-water quality), and
WSP teams do not need to update their WSPs immediately to implement the
nongovernmental or intergovernmental organizations; and changes in this version of the manual compared with the first edition (2009). The
D academic or research institutions, water sector professionals and others changes can be considered by WSP teams when WSPs are being reviewed and
gradually integrated into future versions if they would be beneficial in the local
with an interest in the safe management of drinking-water supplies.
context.
1 A simplified water safety planning process more suitable for community-managed water supplies is presented in Water safety planning for small community water supplies: step-by-step risk
management guidance for drinking-water supplies in small communities (WHO, 2012).
2 Water safety plan manual, second edition

CONTENT TABLE I.1 • NAVIGATING THE MANUAL
PART USE THIS TO: OF SPECIAL INTEREST TO:
The manual presents a broad range of examples and case studies from
I: Introduction C Appreciate the purpose, audience C All users
lower- to higher-income settings, highlighting practical solutions to and scope of the manual and where
real-world challenges from around the globe to help readers apply the the guidance may be applied
guidance in diverse contexts.
II: Water safety C Obtain an overview of water safety C Water supplier’s senior
This edition of the manual integrates considerations of equity (see Box I.1) planning - planning, and understand the management staff
an overview benefits
and climate resilience (see Box I.2) into the water safety planning approach. and guide to C Government ministries,
C Promote commitment to water safety regulators and
These aspects support access to safely managed and resilient drinking- success
planning (e.g. from decision-makers) surveillance agencies
water supplies for all users, despite future uncertainties, including those C See tips on how to support both C Organizations or
arising from climate variability and change. initial development and effective
professionals providing
implementation of water safety
support to the above
Readers familiar with the 2009 edition of the Water safety plan manual can planning
refer to Annex 1 for a summary of the key changes made in this current
III: Step-by-step C Obtain step-by-step guidance for the C WSP practitioners and
edition. guidance 10 modules of water safety planning trainers
C See how water safety planning C Organizations or
The manual is organized into four parts, which are described in Table I.1, can be applied in diverse settings professionals providing
along with an overview of how to use each section, and to whom it may be through practical examples and case support to the above
of special interest. studies
C Effectively integrate equity and
In addition, the annexes provide further information to support climate considerations, where
implementation of the guidance in this manual. relevant
C Understand strategies for
progressive improvement
C Find additional guidance material
The Aquatown water safety plan: worked example is a hypothetical for each module
example of a WSP that complements the guidance provided in this manual.
This supplementary tool will help readers appreciate how water safety IV: Toolbox C Get a quick start for a first WSP by
planning works and the relationship between the different modules. using the basic templates provided
It follows an illustrative example across all WSP modules. Specific C Find links to editable versions of
references to the Aquatown WSP are included in the relevant modules each template
in Part III, and the document can be accessed at: https://www.who.int/
publications/i/item/9789240067691.
Part I: Getting the most from this manual 3

BOX I.1 CONSIDERING EQUITY IN WATER SAFETY PLANNING
Disadvantaged groups must be explicitly considered if disparities in access to safe drinking-

water are to be understood and addressed. Water safety planning can support tangible
improvements in access to safe drinking-water for the full diversity of users (see examples
of potential user groups in the adjacent figure). WSPs are an important opportunity to SERVICE LEVEL DISABILITY SOCIAL
contribute to the realization of the human right to water and sanitation2 if equity is duly
Shared tap Mobility Language
considered.
Private yard tap Sight Religion
Water safety planning is equitable if all groups have the opportunity to meaningfully Interior plumbing Hearing Culture
participate in the process and derive equitable benefit from its outcomes. Ensuring that Non-users Mental Ethnicity
water safety planning is equitable may include: Caste
C explicitly considering users in informal settlements when assessing risks;

C recognizing the need to compensate stakeholders adversely affected by improvement
measures (e.g. surface water protection measures that inadvertently affect farmers’ LOCATION GENDER LAND TENURE INCOME
livelihoods); Remote Roles and Formal Below poverty line
responsibilities
C considering all users in monitoring programmes (e.g. those in the most vulnerable Central for water Informal Above poverty line
areas of the distribution network); and Wealthy
C developing emergency response plans that consider the needs of different groups
(e.g. those with limited access to communication systems).
Opportunities to address equity in water safety planning are addressed in the relevant EDUCATION AGE MANY OTHERS
modules in Part III. For further details, see also WHO (2019). Illiterate Young Health
Highly literate Old Household
head
2 The human right to water and sanitation means providing services that are safe,
affordable, acceptable, accessible and available to all users, without discrimination. In Examples of diverse user groups for drinking-water supplies
water safety planning, this means ensuring that equitable benefits are experienced by
all, including women, men, and people of different ages, religions and abilities. For more
information, see https://www.unwater.org/human-rights-water-sanitation/ (accessed 24
August 2022).

BOX I.2 HOW CAN WATER SAFETY PLANNING STRENGTHEN RESILIENCE TO
CLIMATE THREATS?
Effective planning for the supply of safe drinking-water must consider the growing uncertainties associated with
a changing climate. Strengthening resilience can support water suppliers to better anticipate, respond to, cope
with, recover quickly from, and adapt to, future shocks and stresses associated with climate variability and change.
Water safety planning offers a systematic approach to build resilience to current and emerging climate threats by
considering the implications of climate variability and change at each stage of the water supply.
Water suppliers should consider past climate events that adversely affected the water supply and understand how
projected changes in climate could threaten the system in the future.
WSP teams may need to draw on external expertise, such as specialists in hydrology, climatology, public health
and disaster risk reduction, to better understand the vulnerability of the system to the effects of climate change.
Where required, system vulnerabilities must be addressed through robust improvement planning and
strengthened management practices. Because climate projections are inherently uncertain, such measures should
ideally provide benefit under different climate scenarios, and be adaptable as new climate information becomes
available.
Key areas where climate considerations should be integrated into WSPs are presented in the relevant modules in
Part III. For further details, see also WHO (2017a).
Part I: Getting the most from this manual 5

II
PART
Water safety planning:

an overview and guide to success
Water safety planning: an overview and guide to success
WATER SAFETY PLANNING AT A Water safety planning organizes and systematizes a long history of best
management practices adopted by water suppliers. Central to water safety
GLANCE planning is the “multiple-barrier” approach to risk management (Fig. II.1), which
is fundamental to protecting the safety of the drinking-water supply. In this
approach, if one barrier (or control measure) fails, other barriers should help
Water safety planning is a proactive risk assessment and risk
management approach to help ensure drinking-water safety, from ensure the safety of the drinking-water supply to the user.
catchment to consumer.3 The water safety planning approach has 10 key steps, summarized as 10
modules in Table II.1. Water safety planning is an iterative process for the safe
Water safety planning is a systematic process that is widely recognized as the management of drinking-water supplies, and is applied as a continuous cycle of
most reliable way to manage drinking-water supplies for the protection of public improvement (see Part III, Fig. III.1).
health.
Water safety planning is complemented by sanitation safety planning – a risk-
Effective implementation of water safety planning can help to ensure that users based management tool for sanitation systems that helps sanitation managers
receive safe and acceptable drinking-water in sufficient quantity. It achieves this assess and prioritize public health risks along the entire sanitation chain
by: (Box II.1).
D understanding the complete water supply;

D identifying where and how problems could arise; In essence, water safety planning asks the simple questions:
D focusing initially on the priority risks, and putting barriers and C What are the priority risks?
management systems in place to proactively manage these risks; C How can we better manage the risks?
C How can we confirm the ongoing effectiveness of
D ensuring that all parts of the system continue to work effectively; and
the risk management approach?
D actively involving all stakeholders concerned with the supply of safe
drinking-water.
3 In this manual, the terms “consumer” and “user” are used interchangeably to describe the end user of the drinking-water supply, irrespective of whether they pay for the drinking-water service or not.

Cl2: chlorine
Fig. II.1 Example of the multiple-barrier approach to help ensure safe drinking-water supply (adapted from Hunter Water, 2011).
Part II: Water safety planning - an overview and guide to success 9

TABLE II.1 • WATER SAFETY PLANNING: OVERVIEW OF THE 10 MODULES
WHY PRACTISE WATER SAFETY
WSP
COMPONENT
MODULE
NO.
TITLE ADDRESSES PLANNING?
Who will lead WSP
Assembling the WSP Ensuring a safe drinking-water supply should be one of the highest
Preparation 1 development and
Team
implementation? priorities for water suppliers. Water safety planning can reduce illness
How does the system associated with drinking-water, which can help reduce poverty and
2 Describing the system deliver drinking-water from enhance well-being and livelihoods.
catchment to consumer?
Identifying hazards and
3 What could go wrong?
System
hazardous events Water safety planning plays a crucial role in
assessment Validating existing How effective are the delivering safe drinking-water
4 control measures and control measures and how
assessing risks important are the risks?
The World Health Organization (WHO) Framework for Safe Drinking-Water
What needs to be improved
Planning for (in WHO, 2022) outlines the basic and essential requirements to ensure the
5 to ensure the supply of safe
improvement safety of drinking-water. This consists of:
drinking-water, and how?
Monitoring control Are the control measures setting drinking-water quality targets (e.g. by the drinking-water
6 D
measures operating as intended?
quality regulator as part of national drinking-water quality standards);
Monitoring Verifying the How do we know that
7 effectiveness of water the WSP is working and D achieving these targets via a proactive risk assessment and risk
safety planning effective? management approach, in line with the principles of water safety
What management planning; and
Strengthening procedures should be used
8 D verifying that the targets are being achieved and the WSP is effective
Management management procedures for normal and abnormal
conditions? through an independent system of surveillance (e.g. by a public
and
communication What is the best way to
health agency).
Strengthening WSP
9 support the implementation
supporting programmes Water safety planning is one of three functions recommended by WHO
of water safety planning?
to ensure drinking-water safety (Fig. II.2) and can help water suppliers to
WSP review and Reviewing and updating How will the WSP be kept
10 achieve drinking-water quality targets.
improvement the WSP up to date?

End–product testing alone is insufficient
DRINKING-WATER
QUALITY TARGETS End-product testing – that is, testing water quality at the end-point of the
established based on health considerations system, such as a consumer meter or tap – is an important component of safe
drinking-water management. However, reliance on end-product testing alone is
insufficient to manage drinking-water safety. End-product testing:
D is a reactive approach – any problems in drinking-water safety have

Water supply managed by a already occurred by this stage;
WATER D gives a “spot check” only, and problems that occur at another location or
SAFETY PLAN time can be missed; and
D may not indicate what went wrong, and where and when it occurred,
which may make it difficult to prevent the problem from happening again.
Verified by
End–product testing alone is “too little, too late”
INDEPENDENT
SURVEILLANCE
Water safety planning concentrates on the priority risks, and proactively
monitors the barriers that are designed to protect the water supply. In this way,
water safety planning identifies and manages potential problems before they
Fig. II.2 Simplified framework for managing drinking-water safety (adapted
from WHO, 2022) adversely affect drinking-water safety. End-product testing should be used as
one component of the broader water safety planning approach to verify that the
WSP is working effectively.

Water safety planning benefits water Water safety planning provides resilience to
suppliers, regulators, governments and users future shocks and uncertainty
Water safety planning has been applied across all regions of the world, to Proactive management includes preparing for future events, both foreseen and
different water supply types and in diverse socioeconomic settings (WHO, unforeseen, including climate variability and change, natural disasters, conflict,
2017b). Benefits that have been attributed to water safety planning include:4 epidemics and pandemics. Considering these threats through water safety
planning strengthens the ability of water suppliers to manage these risks into
☑ better microbiological quality of treated water;
the future. Adopting the water safety planning approach can strengthen the
☑ decreased incidence of diarrhoea; overall resilience of the water supply and support business continuity planning
☑ better control of hazardous events from catchment to consumer; – for example, by helping to put in place:
☑ reduced numbers of incidents, and reduction in incident costs; D appropriate emergency management and response planning (including
☑ demonstration of due diligence; effective internal and external communication with stakeholders);
☑ increased consumer confidence in the drinking-water supply; D robust supply chains (e.g. for treatment additives, consumables); and
☑ better stakeholder and customer communication; D contingency plans for managing staff absenteeism (e.g. if large numbers
of staff become ill, or movement is limited by travel restrictions or shelter-
☑ better targeting of priority infrastructure improvements;
in-place orders).
☑ increased operator awareness and training;
☑ improved treatment plant performance;
☑ reduced use of treatment chemicals;
☑ reduced operational costs and better efficiencies;
☑ reduced treatment plant down-time;
☑ reduced non-revenue water; and
☑ optimized water quality monitoring practices.
4 From Gunnarsdóttir et al. (2012); Setty et al. (2017); Kumpel et al. (2018); WHO (2018a); and Setty & Ferrero (2021).

WHAT IS NEEDED FOR WATER SAFETY PLANNING?
Successful water
From a national perspective, effective and sustainable water safety planning programmes need the safety planning
concerted involvement of all stakeholders concerned with the safe management of drinking-water requires a supportive
supplies. enabling environment,
including national
Government agencies should ultimately establish the necessary policy instruments – for example, water safety planning
national/subnational policy on drinking-water quality, legislation, regulations and standards – to policies, programmes
encourage and support uptake of water safety planning by water suppliers. They should provide the for drinking-water
necessary tools for support, such as implementation guidelines, training and peer-to-peer support quality surveillance,
and associated
mechanisms. This should be accompanied by a national programme for surveillance of drinking-water
implementation
quality, which can assess and progressively strengthen the implementation of water safety planning
guidance and training
(e.g. through support visits and/or WSP auditing) to support sustained implementation at scale.
resources.
However, the need to develop policy instruments should not delay initiation of water safety planning. For more detailed guidance on laying the important
Piloting WSPs at a local level can provide practical experience that can be a first step in initiating groundwork on preparing for, introducing and scaling
and encouraging policy and regulatory dialogue. This approach can also demonstrate the feasibility up national water safety planning programmes, refer
and benefits of applying WSPs in a given context, which can help WSP advocacy efforts, as well as to:
supporting the development of context-appropriate guidance and tools for effective implementation. Think big, start small and scale-up: a roadmap to
support country-level implementation of water
safety plans (WHO & IWA, 2010).
Policy and regulatory requirements must be supported by efforts to ensure that the value of water safety
planning is genuinely appreciated by water suppliers. This can be achieved through targeted advocacy
and awareness raising, highlighting how water safety planning can complement and strengthen existing
management systems, and ensuring pragmatic WSP auditing that demonstrates the practical value of
water safety planning.
SUCCESSFUL WATER SAFETY PLANNING PRACTICES

There is no single model approach for a water supplier to develop and implement water safety planning. However, practical application of
WSPs globally has identified several practices that underpin successful water safety planning, which are summarized in Figure II.2. These
practices should be considered by WSP teams in addition to specific tasks presented in Part III.

GET COMMITMENT FROM ALL BUILD ON EXISTING PRACTICES VISIT THE FIELD
ORGANIZATIONAL LEVELS
Review any elements of a WSP that are already in place Conduct field visits, including as part of scheduled
Seek early support from all management levels – this is (e.g. system description, risk assessments, management WSP reviews, to confirm the accuracy of information
crucial to securing resources and support for changes in procedures) and strengthen them as required to align with about the water supply and schematics, and help
work practices. Use the information in Part II to advocate the WSP approach. keep the WSP up to date. If water safety planning is
for this commitment. done solely as a desk-top study, important threats
There is no need to completely replace existing processes within the system may be overlooked.
Ensure that all staff concerned with drinking-water safety for identifying and managing risks (e.g. through existing
(e.g. operational staff, customer service representatives, management systems such as the hazard analysis and critical
asset managers) are involved – this increases ownership control points (HACCP) approach; see Annex 3).
and the range of perspectives. Keep all organizational SET REALISTIC EXPECTATIONS
levels informed of progress and the benefits of water
safety planning (see Case study II.1). AIM FOR EARLY GAINS AND Be realistic about what water safety planning will achieve
in the short term, and the time required to develop
IMPROVE PROGRESSIVELY and implement a WSP (see Case study II.3). Realistic
expectations about water safety planning can lead to
Aim for continuous stepwise improvements. Start with easily rapid uptake, stronger motivation and enhanced support.
SET CLEAR OBJECTIVES manageable issues (“quick wins”) to build confidence and
demonstrate the value of water safety planning – this can be
Set clear objectives at the start of the WSP journey to help powerful to motivate staff and decision-makers to support,
water suppliers define the ultimate goals of undertaking and invest additional resources in, water safety planning. DON’T VIEW WSPs AS JUST
water safety planning. Objectives can be expanded
The first WSP may not meet all expectations, but it is a ANOTHER REPORT
progressively and made more ambitious over time.
start that can be built on during iterative cycles of WSP
Use measurable indicators (e.g. key performance strengthening. Ensure that water safety planning is part of normal
indicators, impact assessment or outcome evaluation practice, used constantly, updated regularly, and dynamic
indicators; see Case study II.2) and time-bound goals so in response to experience and change.
that progress can be tracked and areas for improvement
identified. STICK TO CORE PRINCIPLES, Avoid writing WSPs and documenting the associated
BUT BE FLEXIBLE information only to comply with regulatory requirements
or to “tick boxes” – instead, use the WSP to help make
a water supplier more mature in their approach to risk
Ensure that the water safety planning approach presented in
SEE WATER SAFETY PLANNING this manual is tailored to how the water supplier is organized
management, ensuring that outputs from the WSP are
AS CORE WORK acted upon.
to help ensure organizational uptake.
Help water suppliers to see that providing safe drinking-

water is core business, rather than water safety planning
being perceived as extra work.
ADDRESS CATCHMENT
MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES
Embed the WSP as a tool within routine operations.
Ensure that due attention is given to ongoing operations, To effectively manage catchment risks, ensure close
management, monitoring and review – that is, collaboration between the water supplier and relevant
implementation of the WSP, which underpins effective and catchment stakeholders, striving to build trusted
sustainable water safety planning. relationships from the beginning, and identifying mutually
beneficial outcomes.
Fig. II.2 Sustainable and effective water safety planning – tips for water suppliers

WSPs should support progressive gains in safe drinking-water management, in line with capacity and available resources.
Over time, water safety planning can be progressively strengthened by stepwise improvement, towards achieving the desired
objectives. This approach is not an excuse for inaction or delaying necessary actions!
BOX II.1 LINKAGES BETWEEN WATER SAFETY PLANNING AND SANITATION SAFETY PLANNING
Poor sanitation management can have a profound impact on drinking-water quality.
Managing sanitation-related risks through sanitation safety plans (SSPs) can support the supply of safe drinking-water,
including at the:
C source stage (e.g. improving septic waste management within a catchment to help protect drinking-water sources);
C treatment stage (e.g. reducing pathogen loads in source water to help prevent disinfection systems being
compromised);
C distribution/storage stage (e.g. elimination of open sewers to help prevent faecal contaminants entering intermittent
drinking-water supplies); and
C user stage (e.g. reducing open defecation to prevent faecal contamination during household collection, storage and
handling).
Sanitation safety planning can be applied in parallel to water safety planning. Where both approaches are being applied in a given setting, the WSP team and the SSP team should be
considered important stakeholders in the respective processes. In certain contexts, consideration may be given to integrating water and sanitation safety planning.
For more information on SSPs, see Sanitation safety planning (second edition): manual for step-by-step risk management for safely managed sanitation systems (WHO, 2022).
WSP SSP
SECURING SENIOR MANAGEMENT COMMITMENT FOR SUSTAINABLE UPTAKE OF WATER SAFETY PLANNING,
CASE STUDY II.1
EAST AFRICA
Three water suppliers sharing a common water source in Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania C WSP implementation was included in the organization-wide strategic plans of the
undertook water safety planning as part of a transboundary operator partnership utilities.
programme. From an early stage of the partnership, the three utilities openly shared C Organizational budgets took into consideration the costs and resources required for
knowledge and ideas across all levels of their organizations, including management. This WSP implementation.
interactive exchange helped to sensitize senior management within the organizations,
improving their understanding of the benefits of water safety planning. This helped C Water safety planning activities were included as a key performance indicator for staff
secure the necessary organizational commitment to further develop and implement their involved in WSP implementation; these indicators are appraised periodically, among
respective WSP programmes. other staff performance targets.
This approach has ensured ongoing interest and commitment from senior management,
The Boards of each organization were made also aware of water safety planning from the which has underpinned the successful implementation of water safety planning over the
start, and ultimately approved the roll-out of the project, taking an active interest in the longer term.
progress of water safety planning. A number of senior managers were invited to take part
in a “stakeholder clinic”, which helped to foster an active working relationship between
management and the key stakeholders required for effective water safety planning.
To ensure sustainable implementation of water safety planning following the initial WSP
development, the following activities were conducted by the water suppliers, with support
from senior management.

CASE STUDY II.2 UNDERSTANDING WSP TIME COMMITMENTS – AN EXAMPLE FROM PRIVATE OPERATORS
A survey was conducted to assess the costs and benefits of the WSPs developed by private operators in France, Spain, Cuba, Morocco and China (Macao Special Administrative Region). The
average time to implement a WSP was about 13 months, varying from 6 to 24 months depending on system size and complexity. Labour investment linked to water safety planning activities
was about 10.5 person-months (full-time equivalent) for WSP development, and 4 person-months/year for ongoing WSP implementation.
Source: Kayser et al. (2019).
CASE STUDY II.3 SETTING WATER SAFETY PLANNING OBJECTIVES, INDIA
At the start of the WSP journey, a water supplier in India set clear objectives that were Examples of water safety planning objectives and corresponding measurable indicators
aligned with their own priorities, as well as those of the local health agencies. The overall OBJECTIVE/OUTCOME INDICATOR FORMULA
aim of water safety planning was to ensure “a continuous supply of safe drinking-water
Minimize cases of No. of cases No. of cases of diarrhoea, dysentery, cholera,
to safeguard public health”. This general aim comprised a number of specific objectives, waterborne diseases ⊲ waterborne ⊲ typhoid, infectious hepatitis A, and worm
including improvements in: diseases infestation
C water quality Improve management

and operational
⊲ Operator training
programs (plans
⊲ Score = 100: Operators and staff have
received initial and refresher training, as
C water accessibility procedures for training documented in manually updated human
system operators resources capacity-building records of
or staff) employees or in computerized human
C water quantity and continuity resource records.
C capacity-building Score = 50: Operators and staff members
have received initial training.
C internal and external cooperation Score = 0: Operators and staff members have
not received any training.
C response to emergency situations.
For each defined objective, measurable indicators were developed, with corresponding Setting objectives at the start of water safety planning can help water suppliers to clearly
goals. From this, progress in the achievement of WSP objectives could be measured, which reflect upon and define the purpose of the exercise, and improve how they go about
allowed evaluation of the outcomes of the WSP process. developing and implementing the WSP. Setting objectives can also help to identify the
benefits of water safety planning, which can motivate stakeholders and support advocacy.
Source: After ADB (2020).

III
PART
Step-by-step guidance
Overview of water safety
planning in action
Water safety planning is a continuous and iterative process for
making stepwise improvements in the management of drinking-
water supplies. Water safety planning occurs in four phases
(Fig. III.1).
D WSP DEVELOPMENT: The WSP is established, and all 10

modules are developed and documented in the WSP.
D WSP OPERATION: The WSP is applied routinely – that is,
in activities that are conducted daily, weekly, and so on.
D WSP VERIFICATION: WSP verification programmes
take place.
D WSP REVIEW: The entire WSP is periodically reviewed.
It is updated if needed (e.g. after an incident, a significant
change in the water supply or an audit). This review leads
back to the WSP development phase.
Critical to success is ensuring that the WSP is a living document

that is embedded within routine water supply management, and is
continuously reviewed and progressively strengthened.
The WSP development phase is an important first step, but

water safety planning will be ineffective without WSP operation,
verification and review. These phases are crucial for ongoing and
effective implementation of WSPs, and for the benefits of water
safety planning to be achieved and sustained.
Fig. III.1 Water safety planning in action

MODULE Assembling the WSP team
1 Who will lead WSP development and implementation?
START HERE
AT A GLANCE: MODULE 1
Aim WSP DEVELOPMENT
To establish a team to lead the development and ongoing implementation of WSP team established
the WSP here, and has an ongoing
role in leading all four
phases
Key actions
D Identify the required expertise and establish the WSP team
WSP REVIEW
Define the roles and responsibilities of team members AND UPDATE
D WSP OPERATION
WSP team member
Regular WSP
Key outputs details reviewed
regularly and as
team meetings
undertaken here
required here, and
A multidisciplinary, well-functioning team that takes on collective responsibility
updated as needed
and leadership for developing and implementing the WSP
Key term WSP VERIFICATION

See Module 7
WSP team: The team that leads the development and ongoing implementation
of the WSP
Module 1 in action
Part III: Step-by-step guidance 21

1.1 WHY DO WE NEED A WSP TEAM? 1.2 ASSEMBLING THE WSP TEAM –
The WSP team is a multidisciplinary group of individuals who, as a whole, KEY ACTIONS
understand all components of the water supply, from catchment to consumer.
The WSP team provides the leadership, expertise (both technical and 1.2.1 Identify the required expertise and
managerial) and authority to successfully develop and implement a WSP. This establish the team
includes promoting necessary changes inside the organization arising from the
WSP process. Choose WSP team members who collectively have the knowledge and skills
required to assess and manage risks across the entire water supply chain. The
The team plays a vital role in ensuring that the WSP approach is understood
WSP team should understand:
and accepted by all stakeholders concerned with the safe management of
drinking-water. D the operation and management of the entire drinking-water supply
(including emergency responses);
Engage senior management at the start of the process to secure the commitment D all threats to the safe management of the water supply at each stage (i.e.
and resources needed to undertake water safety planning (as discussed in Part II). source, treatment, distribution and storage, user);
D the effectiveness of barriers that are in place to manage these threats;
D the drinking-water quality targets to be achieved (e.g. regulatory
requirements, other relevant service-level targets);
D the extent to which the system can meet these targets, and the public
health implications if it cannot;
D the challenges experienced by the full diversity of users;
D future challenges that may affect the water supply (e.g. climate change,
water security, urbanization, migration);
D how to communicate the WSP process to, and engage with, internal and
external stakeholders; and
D how to maintain management and financial commitment to sustain the
WSP process.

To achieve this collective knowledge and experience, the WSP team typically Stakeholders can be internal (i.e. from within the water supply organization) or
includes individuals from the water supplier and selected external stakeholders, external (i.e. from outside the organization). They can be either members of the
including: WSP team or people outside the team who provide input to the WSP, or need
to be kept informed about it. Box 1.1 suggests a process that could be used to
D technical staff involved in day-to-day system operations and maintenance
identify stakeholders who can contribute to the WSP process.
representing the entire water supply chain;
D engineers with knowledge of design, construction and planning;
The Aquatown water safety plan: worked example shows an example of a
D management staff; WSP team, including roles and responsibilities, and a simplified stakeholder
identification exercise. Available at: https://www.who.int/publications/i/
D individuals with technical knowledge of the public health aspects of item/9789240067691.
drinking-water safety (e.g. microbiological safety, chemical safety);
D staff involved in water sampling and testing;
D representatives of relevant catchment-level agencies, including 1.2.2 Define the roles and responsibilities of
environmental agencies; team members
D representatives of the health authority, including those responsible for
water quality compliance monitoring and/or consumer education; and Clearly define and document the roles and responsibilities of the team
members in the context of the WSP, to ensure that individual members
D representatives of user groups.
understand their duties as they relate to water safety planning.
The WSP team needs the authority, or backing of those with authority, to
Appoint a capable team leader to drive the WSP process. This person needs to
implement the WSP recommendations. This may include approving system
have the organizational and interpersonal skills to ensure that the WSP can be
or management changes that may arise from the WSP process, allocating
effectively implemented.
human and financial resources to implement the WSP, or reporting to relevant
authorities (e.g. the executive of an organization, leaders of a community). Typically, members of the team are not fully assigned to WSP duties, but will
also continue with their other responsibilities. Despite this, it is important that
In many cases, the WSP team will need to seek targeted inputs from advisers
all members of the WSP team support the water safety planning approach and
outside the team with appropriate knowledge and experience. Consider
play an active role in the process. This includes attending regular WSP team
conducting a stakeholder analysis exercise to identify potential stakeholders
meetings (see Box 1.2).
who can support water safety planning. When identifying stakeholders,
consider who may affect or be affected at each stage of the water supply.
The WSP team should consider and, where relevant, act upon the successful
practices for water safety planning presented in Part II (Fig. II.2).

1.3 RECORDING THE OUTPUTS Considerations for progressive
improvement in Module 1
FROM MODULE 1
Limiting the initial scope of WSP team
Refer to Tool 1a (Toolbox – Module 1) for a suggested template to document the membership
details of the WSP team. Ensure that these details are kept up to date through
regular review (as per Module 10). If capacity and resources for initial WSP development are limited, the WSP team
may decide to have a more targeted membership at the start of its water safety
A similar approach can be taken for recording the outputs from the stakeholder planning journey – for example, comprising only staff from the water supplier.
analysis exercise, using the suggested template in Box 1.1 as a starting point. The initial cycle of WSP development will focus primarily on a limited number of
key issues that are likely to be already known to the water supplier, which can be
Document in the WSP the frequency of regular WSP team meetings. Record the assessed and prioritized for action.
agenda and outcomes of WSP team meetings, including key actions, person(s)
responsible and time frames for follow-up. Tool 1b (Toolbox – Module 1) provides During subsequent rounds of WSP development, and as the WSP team gains
a template for recording details of WSP team meetings. experience, team membership and stakeholder engagement can be gradually
broadened to allow a more comprehensive system assessment – for example,
bringing on board catchment-level representatives, then representatives from
water user groups, and so on. Ultimately, the WSP team will have the necessary
and broad-ranging expertise to comprehensively assess and manage all threats
within the system.

1.4 CHALLENGES AND PRACTICAL SOLUTIONS
Maintaining an appropriately sized WSP team Maintaining progress through frequent staff
changes
Unnecessarily large WSP teams can hamper progress and effective decision-
making. The optimal size of the team will often be influenced by the water Regular staff changes (e.g. as a result of staff relocation or retirement) can
supplier’s management structure, and the size and complexity of the water adversely affect progress and result in a loss of momentum for WSP teams. This
supply. To ensure a functional team and efficient decision-making, it may be is particularly the case where regulatory requirements for water safety planning
appropriate in certain contexts to designate individuals as: are not in place.
D core WSP team members – those who are responsible for day-to-day To maintain a focus on water safety planning throughout the organization,
implementation of the WSP and typically attend all WSP team meetings the water supplier could establish an organization-wide water safety planning
(e.g. WSP team members representing water supply operations and policy, which will embed the WSP as a core function of the business. This can
lower management); or help to maintain focus even when staffing changes occur at higher levels within
D extended WSP team members – those who are less involved in day-to- the organization (e.g. senior management).
day WSP implementation and may only need to attend key meetings (e.g.
Developing a water safety planning induction and training kit can quickly
WSP team members representing catchment-level agencies, such as a
educate new staff members, raise awareness about the importance of WSPs
farmer’s group).
and help maintain momentum. Such training kits can be tailored for both regular
See Case study 1.1 for examples of this in practice. staff and higher-level management.
In addition, external stakeholders who are providing advice might need to be

engaged only on selected technical issues, rather than as full members of the
WSP team. This will also help to ensure a manageable size for the WSP team
that facilitates effective decision-making. For example, ad hoc advice from
climate experts may only be needed during WSP development or review.
Where possible, the WSP team and its functions should be integrated into existing
organizational structures, groups and teams. This may improve acceptance and
uptake of the WSP.

BOX 1.1 IDENTIFYING STAKEHOLDERS WHO MAY CONTRIBUTE TO WATER SAFETY PLANNING
Consider conducting a stakeholder analysis exercise to identify potential internal and Potential external stakeholders (i.e. outside the water supply organization)
external stakeholders who can support water safety planning, including those involved
C Land use in the catchment (e.g. agriculture, industry)
in the following areas.
C Catchment management and environmental protection (e.g. agencies managing land
Potential internal stakeholders (i.e. within the water supply organization) use, industrial discharge, water resources, religious festivals)
C Customer service C Public health
C Human resources C Regulation of drinking-water quality
C Independent monitoring of drinking-water quality (e.g. surveillance agency, third-party
C Organizational management
analytical laboratory)
(e.g. environmental management, health and safety management)
C User groups and civil society (e.g. nongovernmental organizations, women’s groups,
C Information technology disability groups, ethnic groups)
C Procurement (e.g. chemicals) C Climate change and public health (e.g. climatologists, hydrologists, epidemiologists,
C Maintenance emergency response planners, adaptation/civil protection planners)
C Other urban infrastructure (e.g. sewerage, roads)
C Asset management
C Research or academic institutions
C Finance
C System design and construction A stakeholder analysis exercise can help determine which stakeholders can contribute to the
water safety planning process and how they can contribute. From this exercise, it may become
C System operation and maintenance
clear that certain stakeholders warrant a full position on the WSP team. These stakeholders
should be recorded in the WSP team table, defining their roles and responsibilities on the team.
EXTRACT FROM A WSP WHERE STAKEHOLDERS WERE IDENTIFIED USING A BASIC STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS EXERCISE
Water supply stage Stakeholder Relevance to the WSP Point of contact Interaction with the WSP team
Source Forestry association Direct influence over forestry Forestry Association Include as member of extended WSP team
practices in the catchment chairperson (to be recorded in WSP team table)
Local bureau of meteorology Technical knowledge of climate Senior meteorological Request ad hoc support during
projections in the catchment officer WSP reviews
Treatment and Municipal council Responsible for management and Mayor Schedule monthly update meetings,
distribution operation of the water supply with informal meetings as required
User level Schools Responsible for safe management School principal Hold informal meetings as required
of drinking-water on premises
Informal settlement group Responsible for improving access Chairperson Include as member of extended WSP team (to be
to safe drinking-water for those recorded in WSP team table)
living in informal settlements

BOX 1.2 PLANNING AND CONDUCTING CASE STUDY 1.1 MANAGING WSP TEAMS FOR EFFECTIVE AND
REGULAR WSP TEAM MEETINGS SUSTAINABLE WATER SAFETY PLANNING
The WSP team should meet regularly to examine the operation Lessons from India
of the WSP and update the WSP as needed. The meetings should To accommodate situations where senior officials wished to be part of the WSP team, two teams
ensure that: were established:
C Water Safety Management Team – included senior management responsible for higher-level
C the WSP continues to be actively implemented; strategic guidance and management; and
C data from operational monitoring and verification are C Water Safety Execution Team – included people responsible for the routine implementation
regularly reviewed to identify trends, outliers and any regular of the WSP.
occurrences of non-compliance;
This helped to maintain ownership of the process by the senior officials, and encouraged efficient
C progress on improvement plans is regularly reviewed;
development and implementation of the WSP.
C contact lists (including emergency contacts) are kept up to
date; Lessons from Sri Lanka
Progress in water safety planning was initially slow because of challenges with the active
C progress is regularly reviewed on achieving WSP objectives
participation of senior management, and stakeholders responsible for catchment and distribution
and related key performance indicators; and zones. These challenges meant that more than one WSP team was required for successful
C impacts from any changes in the water supply and its implementation. WSP teams were established at three levels:
broader organization are regularly monitored and reflected C WSP Implementation Team – responsible for day-to-day operationalization of the WSP;
in the WSP.
C WSP Support Team – included senior management representatives who make decisions on
Choose a meeting frequency commensurate with the stage of institutional changes and resource allocation that support WSP implementation; and
WSP operations. In the early stages of a new WSP, more regular C WSP Stakeholder Team – comprised responsible authorities for the catchment or distribution
meetings will be required (e.g. once per month); for more mature zones to address issues raised through the WSP process.
WSPs, meetings may be less frequent (e.g. once every 3–6
months). Central to the success of this approach was establishment of a dedicated Water Safety Plan
Advisory Unit, creation of a new coordinator role and establishment of clear communication
Ensure that all key actions from the meeting are followed up in a protocols between the teams. The coordinator and the WSP Team Leader were included in all
timely fashion, and records are kept to support routine progress three teams and communicated key actions across the different levels. The coordinator also
reporting to management and WSP audits - see Tool 1b (Toolbox – called targeted meetings with selected stakeholders to ensure that specific WSP issues were
addressed effectively and efficiently. Importantly, the coordinator kept senior management
Module 1). The WSP should be updated as required to reflect the
within the WSP Support Team abreast of progress and the merits of water safety planning, which
outcomes from WSP team meetings.
secured sustained support for ongoing WSP implementation.

ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE FOR MODULE 1
WHO provides specific guidance for the different stages of the water supply to support
assembling the WSP team:
D Groundwater sources – Protecting groundwater for health: managing the quality of

drinking-water sources (WHO, 2006), section 16.3.1.
D Surface water sources – Protecting surface water for health: identifying, assessing and
managing drinking-water quality risks in surface-water catchments (WHO, 2016a),
section 4.1.
D Distribution network – Water safety in distribution systems (WHO, 2014), Chapter 1.
D User premises – Water safety in buildings (WHO, 2011a), section 4.3.
WHO (2017a). Climate-resilient water safety plans: managing health risks associated with climate
variability and change. Section 5.1 includes specific information on the type of climate-related
expertise that can provide ad hoc support to WSP teams.
WHO (2019). A guide to equitable water safety planning: ensuring no one is left behind. Section
1a describes how to ensure meaningful participation of women and disadvantaged groups in the
WSP process.

MODULE Describing the system
2 How does the system deliver drinking-water from catchment to consumer?
START HERE
Aim
WSP DEVELOPMENT
To provide an accurate and concise description of the entire water supply so Water supply system
that the associated risks can be assessed and managed in subsequent WSP described here
modules
Key actions WSP REVIEW

AND UPDATE
Gather, document and update system information, which describes the
WSP OPERATION
D
System description
entire water supply (in words and supporting diagrams) No specific action
reviewed regularly
D Confirm the accuracy of the system description, using desk-top reviews, and as required
interviews and field visits here, and updated
as needed
Key outputs
An accurate and up-to-date description of the entire water supply in words
WSP VERIFICATION
D
and diagrams, including information on the intended uses of water, the See Module 7
diverse user groups and the vulnerabilities of the water supply.
D A summary of historical water safety issues and water suppliers’ water
quality targets (e.g. drinking-water quality standards)
Module 2 in action

2.1 WHY DO WE NEED A SYSTEM The system description should include summarized information about:
DESCRIPTION? D the water supplier and the water supply (e.g. scale of the system, areas of
responsibility);
A thorough system description: D the boundaries of the WSP (see Box 2.1);
D helps the WSP team to understand how the water supply functions; D intended uses of the water (e.g. for drinking, food preparation and other
household applications);
D helps the WSP team to identify limitations of the water supply and where
the system is vulnerable; and D the full diversity of water users (e.g. households, institutions such as
schools and healthcare facilities, commercial and industrial users,
D ensures that all hazards and hazardous events can be identified (Module
informal settlements; see Box 2.2);
3) and the risks assessed (Module 4).
D catchment characteristics, including the extent of vegetation coverage,
If the relevant information is not captured in the system description, important topography, soil types, condition, protection areas, groundwater recharge
risks may be overlooked and not managed. zones, land uses and activities;
D all current sources of water for the water supply (including primary and
2.2 DESCRIBING THE SYSTEM – alternative or emergency sources) and their typical yields;5
KEY ACTIONS D raw water intake,6 storage and conveyance to the water treatment
plant(s);
D water treatment processes (e.g. pre-treatment, coagulation/flocculation,
2.2.1 Gather, document and update system clarification, filtration, disinfection, including any chemicals used to treat
information the water) and a summary of their treatment performance;
D distribution systems, including storage of treated water and the piped
Gather the relevant information to include in your system description, updating distribution network (e.g. age, condition, size and capacity, the materials
existing information as required. in contact with the drinking-water);
The description of the water supply should be concise, but provide sufficient D user interfaces with the water supply (e.g. kiosks, tap stands, water
accurate information to help the WSP team identify vulnerabilities of the water carting, yard taps, piped connections to premises);
supply. D user practices (e.g. collection and transport; household-level treatment,
storage and handling), including any need for use of alternative drinking-
water sources;
5 WHO (2011b) addresses specialized considerations for source management and treatment for desalination systems.
6 The point at which the source water is removed for the water supply; also referred to as the abstraction point or offtake point.

D water demand (including seasonal patterns); Develop a system diagram
D water quality targets (e.g. requirements of national drinking-water quality
Develop a system diagram (or strengthen an existing system diagram) to
regulations and standards);
support the written system description.
D historical water quality, with a particular focus on non-compliances;
System diagrams are an important part of the system description. They provide
D known or potential problems in the system (including a summary of
a visual guide to how the system functions and capture the key elements
recurrent consumer complaints);
of the water supply. A system diagram will be useful in the subsequent risk
D any uncertainties about specific parts of the system (e.g. lack of assessment and management steps.
information on pipe location);
System diagrams should identify:
D history and trends of extreme weather events;
D future trends, such as possible impacts from climate variability and D the key stages in the water supply process (e.g. source; water treatment,
change, and changes in demand for water (e.g. due to changes in distribution and storage; user levels);
abstraction patterns, catchment development, land use, urbanization D the direction(s) of water flow throughout the water supply;
and population growth; see Box 2.3 for examples of climate-related data
D water treatment processes and the type of chemicals used for drinking-
sources and information); and
water treatment (and where they are added to the water);
D potential future or alternative (including emergency) water sources and
D the system’s main equipment and assets (e.g. pumping systems, water
any drinking-water safety issues that might be associated with these
storages, back-up power sources, transmission lines);
sources.
D potential sources of hazards (e.g. location of potentially polluting
activities such as farming, sanitation, and commerce and industry) and
The supplementary tool Module 2: system description checklist contains detailed the key pathways by which these hazards may reach users; and
suggestions for what to consider when completing the WSP system description.
Available at: https://wsportal.org/resource/wsp-manual-module-2-supplementary- D key points where control of the water is currently managed (e.g. existing
tool-system-description-checklist/. monitoring locations and what is monitored) or is necessary to manage.
Fig. 2.1 shows an example of a WSP system diagram. Other types of process
flow diagrams and sketches may also be used. System diagrams may also
In many cases, water suppliers will already have information and documentation include more detail on specific parts of the system, such as the water treatment
for their system description, including system diagrams. This existing information plant schematic shown in Fig. 2.2.
can form the basis of Module 2. The WSP team should review this information
against the guidance presented in Module 2, ensuring that the information is
accurate and up to date, and document (or reference) it in the WSP.

Cattle farm 2.2.2 Confirm the accuracy of the system
Village
See detailed
description
drawing of WTP Treated water
Blue River
5 ML/d storage, steel, Confirm the accuracy of the system description through field visits. It is
1990 important that the system description (including the supporting system diagram)
Blue River is accurate and up to date. Otherwise, incorrect assumptions may be made
WTP 500 kL
about system operation, vulnerability and risks.
Duty/ Duty/
standby standby High-level area,
pump pump 20 000 customers, Visit the complete water supply; several visits can be made for larger supplies.
HH connections For large catchment areas and those that are difficult or unsafe to access,
1 ML technological options (e.g. satellite imagery, drones) could be considered;
Low-level area, 20,000
Raw water storage reservoir customers, 50% HH connections, however, a robust in-person inspection is preferable, where possible.
for irrigation, 1990 50% public tap stands
Interview relevant field staff, operators or stakeholders to confirm the accuracy
HH: household; kL: kilolitre; ML: megalitre; ML/d: megalitres per day; WTP: water treatment plant. of the information (see Case study 2.1). Ensure that the system description is
consistent with accurate data and reports.
Fig. 2.1 Simplified system diagram giving an overview of the entire water supply from Update the system description based on the outcomes of the field visits and
catchment to consumer
on-site staff interviews.
Take photographs when visiting the field to confirm the accuracy of the system
description. This can help to identify hazards and hazardous events in Module
3. By combining both activities in the one field visit, time and resources can be
saved.
Operators and field staff, especially those who have been operating the system
for a long time, can be excellent sources of system knowledge to help confirm the
accuracy of the system description.
ML: megalitre. Interviewing such staff during field inspections can be an important way to
confirm that system diagrams accurately reflect the reality in the field. Interviews
can also record people’s “institutional memory”, which can be lost when more
Fig. 2.2 Simplified diagram of the water treatment plant shown in Fig. 2.1 experienced staff move on from their roles.

BOX 2.1 DEFINING THE BOUNDARIES OF THE WSP
2.3 RECORDING THE OUTPUTS
FROM MODULE 2 Consider the following aspects in relation to the boundary of the WSP.
Catchment boundary
There is no set template for a WSP team to document the system
Often, catchments are delineated zones predefined by external agencies. It may be
description. Typically, the system description will include descriptive text,
convenient to adopt these established catchment boundaries for the WSP.
summary tables and analyses, relevant figures (e.g. trends) and the system
diagram(s).
Interfaces between bulk suppliers in the distribution system
Document the process used to confirm the accuracy of the system When dealing with multiple systems or when bulk water supply is managed by a different
description and the date of the accuracy check (e.g. by recording the date agency, ensure that the interfaces between the agencies are clearly defined (see Annex 2).
on the authenticated system diagrams).
User boundary
Specify the boundary of the WSP at users’ premises – for example, is it at the water
2.4 CHALLENGES AND PRACTICAL meter or does it include user aspects beyond the water meter (e.g. household plumbing,
SOLUTIONS
storage tanks)?
Where there is continuous pressurized water supply and all properties are fully
Defining the boundary of the WSP plumbed, the boundary is often the user’s water meter; this may also align with the
water supplier’s legal responsibility. In other circumstances – for example, systems
with intermittent supply or informal settlements – it may be appropriate to include user
The “boundary” of the WSP is the extent of the water supply that is managed
components beyond the water meter, since these have public health implications.
by the WSP. If the boundaries of the WSP are poorly defined, there can be
confusion about roles and responsibilities, which may result in ineffective Even if a water supplier does not have legal responsibility for certain areas within the
management of important water supply risks. For this reason, the boundaries boundary of their WSP, the WSP team should work closely with the relevant stakeholders
of the WSP should be clearly defined to help ensure effective management for these areas to ensure that priority threats within the water supply are managed.
and operations, including emergency responses. See Box 2.1 for guidance.
Water safety planning can be applied in different ways to large and complex
water supplies – for example, where one water treatment plant serves In some cases, Module 1 should be revisited after completion of Module 2, to assess
several towns, or where bulk water supply arrangements are in place the need to supplement the WSP team. For example, additional experience may be
between distinct water suppliers and water retailers. Options to manage needed to fill knowledge gaps that have become apparent during development of
WSPs in these contexts are presented in Annex 2. Module 2, or to include additional stakeholders, depending on the agreed boundary
of the WSP.

Developing a succinct system description Capturing alternative drinking-water sources
for households
WSP teams often tend to provide excessive, detailed information in the system
description. This is often unnecessary, and can obscure important information In some situations – for example, intermittent water services, drought or
that can help to identify vulnerabilities in the water supply. To develop a emergency situations – consumers may use alternative drinking-water sources
succinct and targeted system description, consider the following. (e.g. rainwater harvesting, private or community boreholes, water carters).
These alternative sources are generally beyond the mandate of the water
D Minimize duplication of information. A WSP may refer to other
supplier, and may be challenging to identify and document. However, it is
information sources (e.g. link to internal databases on asset condition)
important to capture them in the WSP system description, given that water from
and summarize only key information in the system description. As well
these sources may be unsafe to drink.
as minimizing duplication, this will avoid the need to update multiple
documents when changes to one document occur, streamlining WSP Engage with relevant stakeholders to better understand the type of alternative
reviews. water sources used, the drivers for their use (e.g. convenience, economic
D Avoid data “dumping” with no analysis – for example, engineering pressures) and the patterns of use (e.g. use of household rainwater harvesting
drawings of piping and instrumentation diagrams, or excessive during the wet season). Documenting these alternative sources in the system
information with little analysis of the implications for safe drinking-water description can help to address and manage important vulnerabilities in
management. The system description should be targeted and facilitate subsequent WSP modules, particularly in relation to disadvantaged user
the identification of potential threats to the system in subsequent steps. groups.
Dealing with uncertainties in the system

description
WSP teams will not always have all the information needed to fully complete
the system description, especially the first time. For example, there may be
no readily available information on industrial discharges in the catchment
or accurate maps of the distribution network. Do not delay initial WSP
development to obtain ideal data for the system description. Instead, highlight
uncertainties, unknowns and any assumptions made in Module 2. When the
missing information becomes available, it can be included during the WSP
review stage; this will mean updating the system description and subsequent
risk assessment.

Considerations for progressive improvement CONSIDERING EQUITY
BOX 2.2
in Module 2 IN THE SYSTEM
DESCRIPTION
Deciding on the appropriate scope for the initial WSP
Assuming that all users are a single homogeneous group may
Where capacity and resources for water safety planning are limited, the WSP team may decide to take a overlook important vulnerabilities that affect marginalized
“lighter touch” approach to some sections of the water supply during the initial cycles of water safety planning. users. It is important to explicitly consider the diverse user
groups in the WSP system description, so that the needs of
In practice, this may involve focusing the initial WSP on only selected stages of the water supply where there
vulnerable groups are met. This can be achieved during the
are known significant issues and early gains can be made with respect to drinking-water safety. This approach
system description stage in the following ways.
is fully consistent with the WSP principle of progressive, stepwise improvement.
C Identify diverse user (and non-user) groups. Diversity
WSP teams may consider the following when developing their first WSP.
includes differences in service level, wealth, age, health,
C Catchment aspects have a profound impact on the supply of safe drinking-water, but often these sex and gender. This diversity needs to be understood
challenges are complex, involve multiple stakeholders and may require longer-term solutions to address. to ensure that all users benefit from the WSP. If it is
As well, the water supplier may have limited direct influence on catchment management aspects. The not meaningfully considered at an early stage in the
WSP team may therefore decide to focus on selected known priority issues within the catchment during WSP process, hazardous events affecting certain
the initial cycles of water safety planning. disadvantaged groups may be inadvertently overlooked
during the risk assessment. Where the entire community
C Typically, water suppliers will have extensive experience and knowledge of the water treatment plant,
is not served by the water supply, it is important to also
and the distribution and storage aspects of their system. The water supplier also often has a direct
consider non-users of the system, and to identify and
influence on the management of these stages of the system, and therefore a degree of control (apart
address barriers to access.
from settings where bulk water supply arrangements are in place). In these cases, the WSP team may
decide to focus its initial efforts on these stages of the water supply. C Investigate different user experiences with water.
Knowledge of the diverse range of water user groups
C User-level aspects may significantly affect drinking-water safety, but often the water supplier will not
(as described above) allows exploration of diverse
have legal responsibility or control over user-level practices. In these cases, focusing on the upstream
experiences with water. This will help the WSP team in
stages of the water supply may be pragmatic. User-level risks can be progressively addressed in parallel,
subsequent modules to systematically identify all hazards
working with relevant stakeholders (e.g. government health officials, NGOs).
and hazardous events, develop more appropriate and
Regardless of which stages of the water supply the WSP team focuses on during the initial cycles, effective successful control measures, and determine which
water safety planning should manage risks holistically from catchment to consumer. It is vital that the WSP improvements to prioritize to ensure equitable benefit
team ultimately addresses all stages of the water supply comprehensively and as soon as practicable, in line from the WSP.
with the available capacity and resources. Source: Adapted from WHO (2019).

BOX 2.3 INTEGRATING CLIMATE INFORMATION IN THE SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
Robust water safety planning must consider the vulnerability of the water supply to current A brief summary of relevant climate information should be included in the system
and future impacts from climate variability and change. WSP teams should source climate description (more detailed information can be included in an annex, or referenced). This
information for the system description, according to their capacity and the level of support information can be integrated into the system diagram in a way that helps to identify
available (e.g. from climate-related stakeholders). Examples of common climate-related system vulnerabilities to current and future climate change impacts in later modules (see a
information sources include (in approximate order of increasing complexity and the amount simplified example below).
of end-user input required):
Annual average rainfall:
!"
Current - 75 mm
#
C focus group discussions or workshops with relevant advisers (e.g. climatologists, #
2032
"!
- 110 mm; delays expected to start monsoon;
"
hydrologists, disaster managers, adaptation planners, public health specialists, greater intensity during monsoon period
climate change specialists);
C review of existing reports (e.g. climate vulnerability assessments for the region,
%!'#
country or climatic zone; water resources assessments; basin management plans;
!#
national climate adaptation plans), noting that support may be needed to fill '%%#% $%#&%!
&%)$% ) (%#$%!#% $)$%
information gaps at the local level; &"$
$
C online climate information portals and decision-making tools (e.g. World Bank Climate

Change Knowledge Portal,7 Flood and Drought Portal,8 Climate Wizard9); and
!# #!& '#(
'#(
C online open data sets and model simulations that can be accessed and analysed (e.g. (%#$%!# No household-level
!"
treatment
is practiced
localized online data portals, national bureau of meteorology databases, Coupled
!!!
$ Households use
Model Intercomparison Project – Phase 5 (CMIP5), Climate Change Initiative). !# !!
untreated surface water
#!$
sources during flood
!
In any case, the WSP team should “get started” and use the information sources that when normal supply is
Flood zone:
% interrupted.
are available to them, to start planning for the most likely climate scenario. The team #
Current - darker
# red

Well #3

can consider more complex information sources and tools once experience is gained or Projected 2032 - lighter red Potential future water
60m
source (high fluoride) 20 L/s
additional support can be obtained from climate experts. kL: kilolitre; L/s: litres per second; m: metre; mm: millimetre.
Simplified system diagram with relevant climate information shown in red
7 A web-based platform that provides historical data and climate projections at the regional, country and watershed level, as well as country-specific resources on sector vulnerability and
adaptation measures being taken: https://climateknowledgeportal.worldbank.org/ (accessed 30 August 2022).
8 A web-based platform that provides a methodology with online tools to facilitate the inclusion of information on floods and droughts, and future scenarios into various plans and analyses,
including water safety planning: https://www.flooddroughtmonitor.com/home (accessed 30 August 2022).
9 An interactive web portal that allows users to select countries or regions and map information on climate variables from different general circulation models: https://climatewizard.ciat.
cgiar.org/ (accessed 30 August 2022).

TIP
GENERAL TIPS WHEN DEVELOPING A WSP SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
CASE STUDY 2.1 IMPORTANCE OF FIELD INSPECTIONS AND
Avoid Instead STAFF INTERVIEWS DURING DEVELOPMENT
Excessively long Maximize the use of images, diagrams and OF A SYSTEM DESCRIPTION, AUSTRALIA
system descriptions tables to succinctly provide the information
that are unlikely to be Plan for easy updating in future revisions of During a field inspection in Australia to confirm the accuracy of the system diagram,
read or used the WSP an external valve was found in the water treatment plant that was unmarked, and not
Unnecessary Ensure that everything in the system documented in the draft system diagram.
information description helps to provide a realistic
understanding of how the system works Upon investigation and interview with operational staff, this was found to be an old, unused
valve that would allow untreated (raw) surface water to bypass the water treatment plant
Omitting problems Be honest about known problems, because
other modules (e.g. Module 3, which and directly enter the distribution network that supplied the town. If the valve was leaking
identifies hazards and hazardous events) or unknowingly activated by an operator, untreated water could be consumed by users,
need this understanding leading to a significant water quality incident.
Long, detailed asset Focus on assets that can influence water
Without the field inspection to confirm the accuracy of the system diagram and on-site staff
lists and detailed asset quality, water quantity or other service
condition statements condition interviews, this significant vulnerability would not have been detected, and the risk would
not have been managed.
Link the WSP to asset management
plans and programmes for detailed asset
information
Limiting the description Describe the process and management
to tangible assets systems used to manage the system, in
addition to the equipment and assets

WHO provides specific guidance to support the development of the system description, including:
D Groundwater sources – Protecting groundwater for health: managing the quality of drinking-
water sources (WHO, 2006), section 16.3.2.
managing drinking-water quality risks in surface-water catchments (WHO, 2016a), section 4.2.
D User premises – Water safety in buildings (WHO, 2011a), sections 2.2 and 4.4.
variability and change. Section 5.2 includes specific guidance on the type of climate-related
information that can be used in a system description to strengthen the resilience of the water supply.
WHO (2019). A guide to equitable water safety planning: ensuring no one is left behind. Sections
2a and 2b have specific guidance on how to effectively consider diverse user groups and their
experiences within the system description, to ensure that equity considerations are effectively
integrated into WSP programming and practice for both urban and rural water supplies.
The Aquatown water safety plan: worked example shows an extract of a WSP system description,
including defining the scope of the WSP, documenting the water users and uses, and system diagrams.
Available at: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240067691.

MODULE Identifying hazards and hazardous events
3 What could go wrong?
START HERE
Aim
WSP DEVELOPMENT
To identify what, where and how something could go wrong within the water
supply that may adversely affect the supply of safe drinking-water Hazards and hazardous
events identified here
Key actions
Identify hazards and the corresponding hazardous events for each stage of the WSP REVIEW
AND UPDATE
water supply, building on the system understanding developed in Module 2
Hazards and WSP OPERATION
hazardous events
Key outputs reviewed regularly No specific action
and as required here,
A concise and comprehensive description of the hazards and hazardous events and updated
that could threaten the safety of the water supply as needed
Key terms WSP VERIFICATION

Hazard: A contaminant or condition that may adversely affect the supply of See Module 7
safe drinking-water
Hazardous event: An event that results in a hazard being introduced to, or
inadequately removed from, the water supply
Module 3 in action

3.1 WHY DO WE IDENTIFY HAZARDS BOX 3.1 HOW TO DESCRIBE HAZARDS
AND HAZARDOUS EVENTS? A hazard is usually expressed as a noun or noun phrase – for example, a microbial
pathogen, a chemical contaminant or a water shortage. Generic hazard types typically
The WSP team needs a clear understanding what could go wrong throughout used in WSPs are listed in the table below (although WSP teams may consider
the entire water supply to ensure that important risks can be identified and variations of these to suit the local context).
managed in subsequent modules.
Microbial: microorganisms (e.g. bacteria, viruses, parasites such as
protozoa and helminths) in drinking-water that could cause disease
3.2 IDENTIFYING HAZARDS AND following ingestion of the water, inhalation of water droplets or dermal
contact with the water.
HAZARDOUS EVENTS – KEY ACTIONS Microbial hazards may affect health following short-term exposure. They are
For each stage of the water supply described in Module 2, identify and
M typically associated with consumption of drinking-water contaminated with
animal or human faeces (although there may be other sources and routes of
exposure).
describe the hazards and hazardous events that may occur.
Infectious diseases caused by microbial pathogens are the most common
Consider the types of hazards that occur in the system, using Box 3.1 for and widespread health risks associated with drinking-water. Their
assessment and control should therefore be given the highest priority by
guidance. the WSP team.
Identify the hazardous events associated with the hazard – that is, how the Chemical: constituents that can cause adverse health effects, typically
hazard might be introduced into, or inadequately removed from, the water C after longer-term exposure (e.g. arsenic, fluoride, lead, manganese, nitrate,
certain industrial chemicals, pesticides).
supply.
Radiological: substances (radionuclides) that contain unstable atoms
A hazardous event can describe a single event (e.g. a loss of free chlorine R that emit radiation and could present a risk to human health, typically after
longer-term exposure.
residual due to a dosing pump breakdown) or a series of events (e.g.
Acceptability: aspects that affect user acceptance of the water (e.g. taste,
contamination of surface water with microbial pathogens due to cattle faeces
odour, colour, appearance). Acceptability-related hazards may undermine
entering the source water via run-off following heavy rain).
A user confidence and can also have indirect negative health implications; for
example, if users reject the water, they might turn to other, potentially less
Be specific when describing hazardous events. Hazardous events that are safe, sources of drinking-water.
too general and poorly defined are difficult to assess in the risk assessment Quantity: aspects that can negatively affect the quantity of water
(in Module 4) and, therefore, are less likely to be effectively managed. Box 3.2 available to users (e.g. insufficient quantity of water available for
provides a template for clearly describing hazardous events.
Q domestic needs). Quantity-related hazards may also undermine user
confidence and affect public health; for example, users might turn to
Table 3.1 gives additional examples of hazards and hazardous events that may less safe alternative sources, or they might have inadequate water for
hydration, cooking or basic hygiene.
occur throughout a water supply.

BOX 3.2 HOW TO DESCRIBE HAZARDOUS EVENTS 3.3 RECORDING THE OUTPUTS FROM
A clear and concise way to write a hazardous event is to use the convention:
MODULE 3
X happens because (of) Y Document the outputs from Module 3 in the WSP in a way that facilitates
easy and efficient review, and allows integration with the subsequent risk
where X is the effect on the water supply and Y is the cause.
assessment in Module 4 (see examples in Table 3.2).
For example:
The output from Module 3 is commonly a table of the identified hazards and
Entry of microbial contamination into distribution pipes (X) because of unsanitary pipe hazardous events. A suggested template is provided in Toolbox – Module 4,
repair practices (Y) which forms part of an overall risk assessment table.
In addition to what happens, X will often describe the stage of the water supply where
it occurs (e.g. source water, network pipe, informal settlement). X may also include the
hazard type (e.g. microbial contamination, arsenic, pesticide).
3.4 CHALLENGES AND PRACTICAL
SOLUTIONS
Identifying X (the effect) and Y (the cause) allows the WSP team to understand and
assess the associated risk, and to identify appropriate control measures in Modules 4
and 5. Clearly defining hazardous events
Poorly defined hazardous events can greatly affect the quality of the risk
assessment and make it difficult to identify the appropriate controls to manage
Water suppliers may already have existing registers for hazards and hazardous the risk. For example, describing a hazardous event simply as “dirty pipes”
events from system assessments that have been undertaken in the past – for does not tell you how this is caused – for example, it might be caused by pipe
example, from existing failure mode, effects and criticality analysis (FMECA) breakages, abnormal flow conditions or a lack of network maintenance. As a
studies; hazard and operability analysis (HAZOP) studies; or quantitative microbial
result, it is not clear what controls may manage this risk.
risk assessment (QMRA).
In these cases, the WSP team should review these existing registers, ensuring Describe the hazardous events in sufficient detail to enable the WSP team
that the information is up to date and covers all stages of the water supply. This
to conduct a robust risk assessment and identify appropriate controls in
information can then be integrated into the WSP, addressing gaps where required.
subsequent modules (see Table 3.1 for examples).

TABLE 3.1 • EXAMPLES OF WEAK HAZARDOUS EVENT DESCRIPTIONS COMPARED
WITH MORE PRECISE DESCRIPTIONS Comprehensively identifying
hazards and hazardous events
WEAK HAZARDOUS MORE PRECISE HAZARDOUS EVENT throughout the water supply
EVENT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTIONS USING THE X-Y TEMPLATEa
Developing a complete list of hazards and hazardous events
C The source water is faecally contaminated (X) because of for the water supply can be a daunting task, especially for
application of animal waste on crops close to the extraction early-stage WSP teams. Yet this is an important step to ensure
Agriculture in the point and subsequent run-off following heavy rain (Y). that all risks are assessed and the priority risks are managed in
catchment C The source water is chemically contaminated (X) because of subsequent WSP modules.
use of pesticides on crops and subsequent run-off following
rain (Y). Suggested actions to help a WSP team to systematically create
a comprehensive list of hazards and hazardous events include
C Turbidity is not removed in the water treatment plant (X) the following.
because the chemical coagulant stock is out of date and
Treatment ineffective (Y).
failure ☑ Answer three key questions: Consider the system
C Protozoan pathogens are not removed in rapid sand filters (X) description (Module 2) from the following three
because of insufficient filter backwash time (Y).
perspectives.
C Microbial contamination has entered leaking drinking-water C What has gone wrong in the past? A pragmatic
pipes (X) because of pipe depressurization (i.e. negative starting point is to use staff experiences and
Intermittent pressure) from intermittent supply (Y).
institutional memory to document previous real
supply C Sediment contamination is present in the distribution water issues and near misses (e.g. a power failure that
(X) because of resuspension of sediment deposits in pipes
following the return of intermittent supply (Y). resulted in a loss of chlorine disinfection).
C What is wrong now? Consider current threats
C Microbial contamination has entered the pipe (X) because of a that may adversely affect the water supply
failure to hygienically cover pipes during pipe storage at the – for example, is the water supply currently
Pipeline depot (Y).
experiencing any reduction or unreliability in
repair C Soil particles contaminate water in the pipe (X) because of a
source water quantity, and which user groups are
failure to flush the pipe after repair and reinstatement of the
water supply (Y). most vulnerable?
a These are illustrative examples only. Each hazardous event in the WSP must reflect the specific context.

C What could go wrong in the future? This requires a systematic in the future, as this may require professional experience and knowledge
review of the water supply to determine what could potentially sharing (e.g. with other water suppliers, research or academic institutions,
go wrong. Lateral thinking is needed to identify all potential climate change experts, health experts).
hazards and hazardous events, even those that are not obvious ☑ Consider all user groups: Certain users may be more likely than others
(e.g. flooding in sections of the distribution network that have not to experience unsafe water because of their location within the water
flooded before). Consider broader future trends that may affect supply network, the type of collection point they use, or water use and
the delivery of safe drinking-water, including population growth, management practices. The WSP team should consider the full range of
changes in land use, urbanization and climate change (see Box user experiences with water, including issues specific to disadvantaged
3.3). groups or those in informal settlements; otherwise, these hazards and
☑ Use the diagrams and information prepared in Module 2: Use the hazardous events may be overlooked.
historical data obtained for the system description (e.g. water quality ☑ Use system assessment tools and checklists: Consider the use
data for source water and treated water, consumer complaints, rainfall, of standard industry system assessment tools (e.g. FMECA, HAZOP),
other surface water and/or groundwater hydrological data) to understand integrating these within the WSP approach and ensuring that their
trends, extremes and issues related to the hazards within the system. outputs align with those for Module 3. Consider existing hazard and
Supplement these data as required, and keep a register of missing or hazardous events checklists that may be available for the local context
unavailable data so that relevant information can be collected in the (e.g. developed by national health or regulatory agencies). See Additional
future. guidance for Module 3 for links to generic hazard and hazardous event
☑ Inspect the system: Visit the entire water supply to identify the system’s checklists.
vulnerabilities (see Case study 3.1). For efficiency, this activity can be
combined with the field inspection that was undertaken when developing
the system description (as described in Module 2). For larger systems,
inspections can be performed systematically over several visits.
☑ Discuss with stakeholders: Discuss and identify water supply
vulnerabilities with internal and external stakeholders who are familiar
with the water supply – for example, water supply operators, designers,
maintenance staff and contractors, catchment managers, farmers, anglers
and NGOs. Workshops with a range of stakeholders with appropriate
skills and knowledge are often necessary to systematically identify the
full range of hazards and hazardous events within the water supply. This
approach can be especially useful when identifying what could go wrong

Considerations CONSIDERATION OF CLIMATE-RELATED HAZARDS AND
BOX 3.3
for progressive HAZARDOUS EVENTS
improvement in Based on the current and most likely future climate scenarios in a given context, the WSP team should consider how
Module 3 climate change may affect hazards and hazardous events, including those relating to the following aspects.
If capacity and resources for water safety C Water quality – generally events exacerbated by warmer, drier conditions or more intense precipitation. Example:
planning are limited, the WSP team may initially the presence of toxins as a result of cyanobacterial (“blue–green algal”) blooms in source water storage reservoirs
decide to focus only on known threats, including (X) because of increased precipitation that leads to nutrient run-off and/or warmer water temperatures (Y).
current issues and those that have happened in C Water quantity – risks to water quantity as a result of drought-related hazardous events, exacerbated by future
the past. climate change and other factors (e.g. population growth, increased demand on water resources by industry).
Example: lower-quality groundwater with high salinity levels (X) because of drought periods that cause a lowering
The WSP team can build on this in subsequent of the groundwater table (Y).
cycles of WSP development to identify issues C Water acceptability – events that may affect the taste, odour, colour or appearance of drinking-water. Example:
that could potentially go wrong within the stale-tasting water at the user’s tap (X) because of increased water age in the network from drought-related water
system. This might involve undertaking a wider restrictions and lower usage rates (Y).
consultation with additional stakeholders or
C Water supply infrastructure – events that can affect the operation and overall structural integrity of water supply
experts, or using more sophisticated predictive
assets. Example: supply interruption as a result of electrical faults (X) because of flooding of the network pumping
modelling tools to identify potential hazards and
station from storm surges associated with sea level rise (Y).
hazardous events under specific circumstances.
WSP teams should consider how the most likely climate scenarios (Module 2) may affect each stage of the water supply.
These approaches allow the WSP team to get For example, they can ask the following questions.
started with what they already know. A more
comprehensive identification of hazards and C What effect might an increased frequency and intensity of catchment bushfires have on source water quality?
hazardous events can be undertaken during C How might more rapid deterioration in source water quality arising from more intense precipitation affect the
later cycles of water safety planning as the WSP efficacy of coagulation/flocculation?
team gains experience and additional resources C How will an increase in extreme heat days affect free chlorine residual concentrations at end-points of the network?
become available. C How will supply outages following more frequent cyclones affect residents of informal settlements?
Note that not all hazards and hazardous events will be affected by climate change. For example, chlorine overdosing due
to insufficient operator training would not be affected by climate change. For this reason, WSP teams may find it useful
to differentiate between climate-affected and non-climate-affected hazards and hazardous events to facilitate easier risk
assessment in Module 4.
See Additional guidance for Module 3 for resources that can support the identification of climate-related hazards and
hazardous events.

TABLE 3.2 • EXAMPLES OF HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS EVENTS
PROCESS HAZARD
HAZARDOUS EVENT* (FOLLOWING THE X-Y TEMPLATE)
IMPORTANCE OF FIELD
NO.
STEP TYPE* CASE STUDY 3.1
INSPECTION DURING
Source water yield from a spring is reduced (X) because IDENTIFICATION OF
Source
1
(catchment)
Q of long-term drought and reduced aquifer recharge rates HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
(Y). EVENTS, LIBERIA
Source Less water is available per person (X) because of
2 Q During a field visit as part of Module 3, the main supply pipeline
(catchment) increased demand from a proposed new power plant (Y).
– that is, the water transmission line between the treated water
Treatment Full treatment capability is lost (X) because of flooding of storage tank and the distribution system – was found to be
3 M, A, Q
(general) the water treatment plant following intense rainfall (Y).
exposed because surface water following heavy rainfall had
Chlorine concentration in the treated water leaving the washed away the ground cover. The pipe was beside a main
Treatment
4 M treatment plant is too low for effective disinfection (X) road that was subject to heavy vehicular traffic.
(chlorination)
because of chlorine pump breakdown (Y).
If the pipe had been damaged, the water supply to the town
Storage tank water is intentionally contaminated (X) would have to be shut off for an extended period to allow repair
Distribution
5 M, A, C because of vandalism following unauthorized access to work. This would lead to a prolonged supply outage, as well as
(storage tank)
the storage tank (Y). microbial and acceptability risks associated with depressurizing
Contaminants (e.g. debris, soil, groundwater) enter an the water main and repairing the pipeline.
Distribution
6 M, A open section of replacement pipe in the repair trench (X) This issue highlights the importance of field inspection when
(piped network)
because of unsanitary repair procedures (Y).
identifying hazards and hazardous events, which would
Water collected for informal settlement households is otherwise go unmanaged in subsequent WSP modules.
User level
7 M microbially contaminated (X) because unsanitary hoses
(public tap stand)
have been connected to the public tap stand (Y).
Water at the household is microbially contaminated (X)

User level
8 M because of poor cleaning and maintenance of rooftop
(user premises)
storage tanks by householders (Y).
A: acceptability hazard; C: chemical hazard; M: microbial hazard; Q: quantity-related hazard; R: radiological hazard.
* The order of the “Hazard type” and “Hazardous event” columns can be switched to suit the WSP team’s preference.
The supplementary tool Module 3: possible threats to the supply of safe drinking-water contains
information to help identify possible water safety threats. This information can be a starting point to
describe system-specific hazards and hazardous events. Available at: https://wsportal.org/resource/
wsp-manual-module-3-supplementary-tool-possible-threats-to-the-supply-of-safe-drinking-water/.

WHO provides specific guidance to support the identification of hazards and WHO (2019). A guide to equitable water safety planning: ensuring no one is left
hazardous events at different stages of the water supply, including: behind. Section 2c gives information on why it is important to consider all user
experiences when identifying hazardous events, as well as examples and real-
D Groundwater sources – Protecting groundwater for health: managing
world case studies.
the quality of drinking-water sources (WHO, 2006), Chapters 9–13 and
section 16.4. WHO (2022). Guidelines for drinking-water quality: fourth edition incorporating
Surface water sources – Protecting surface water for health: identifying, the first and second addenda. Provides guidance and fact sheets on the main
D
assessing and managing drinking-water quality risks in surface-water hazard classes, including microbial (Chapters 7 and 11), chemical (Chapters 8
catchments (WHO, 2016a), Chapter 3. and 12), radiological (Chapter 9) and acceptability (Chapter 10).
D Distribution network – Water safety in distribution systems (WHO, 2014),

sections 3.1 and 3.2. The Aquatown water safety plan: worked example provides detailed examples
of hazards and hazardous events presented in an extract from a risk assessment
D User premises – Water safety in buildings (WHO, 2011a), sections 2.3 and table. Available at: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240067691.
4.5.
Rickert B & van den Berg H (2021). Climate resilient water safety plans:
compilation of potential hazardous events and their causes. Provides a generic
hazardous event checklist to consider throughout a water supply, including
hazardous events that may be caused or exacerbated by climate change.
WHO (2007). Chemical safety of drinking-water: assessing priorities for risk

management. Includes guidance on potential chemical hazards, classified
as naturally occurring chemicals, agricultural activities, human settlements,
industrial activities, and water treatment and distribution.
WHO (2017a). Climate-resilient water safety plans: managing health risks

associated with climate variability and change. Section 5.3 gives information on
climate considerations when identifying hazards and hazardous events. Table 3
(section 5.5) gives detailed examples of specific hazards and hazardous events
that may be exacerbated by climate change.

MODULE Validating existing control measures and
4 assessing risks
How effective are the control measures and how important are the risks? START HERE
Aim Key terms
WSP DEVELOPMENT
To evaluate the effectiveness of Control measure: An activity or Existing control measures
existing control measures and assess process to prevent, eliminate or identified and validated
the risks to the water supply, so that reduce the risk of a hazardous event here, and the risks
action can be prioritized to an acceptable level assessed
Key actions Control measure validation:

Obtaining evidence that the control WSP REVIEW
D Identify existing control measures measure can effectively control the AND UPDATE
D Validate the effectiveness of corresponding hazardous event WSP OPERATION
Risk assessment
existing control measures Risk: The product of the likelihood of reviewed regularly No specific action
occurrence of a hazardous event and and as required
D Assess the risks here, and updated
its severity (or consequences) as needed
Key outputs Risk assessment: An evaluation of
D Identification of existing control the significance of a hazardous event
measures Risk score: The score assigned in the WSP VERIFICATION
D Validation of the effectiveness of risk assessment See Module 7
existing control measures against Risk matrix: A matrix used to calculate
the hazardous event the risk score, made up of likelihood
D Determination of risk levels for all descriptors and severity descriptors
the hazardous events identified in Risk level: The level of risk assigned
Module 3, so that significant risks based on a risk score (e.g. low,
Module 4 in action
are prioritized for action medium, high)

4.1 WHY DO WE VALIDATE EXISTING 4.2 VALIDATING CONTROL MEASURES
CONTROL MEASURES AND ASSESS AND ASSESSING RISKS – KEY ACTIONS
RISKS?
4.2.1 Identify existing control measures
Every water supply contains many hazardous events (as identified in Module 3),
each with a particular level of risk. An objective risk assessment can rank these Determine existing control measures for each of the hazardous events
risks, allowing the water supplier to focus their attention and resources on the identified in Module 3. For hazardous events that do not have existing control
hazardous events that present the highest risks to the safety of the drinking- measures in place, document this clearly in the WSP.
water supply.
Control measures can take the form of:
The first step in ranking the risks is to identify and validate any existing control
measures to understand how effective they are in controlling the corresponding D physical infrastructure (e.g. fencing around a source water intake, water
hazardous event. This allows the need for new control measures, or for treatment plant filtration unit); and
strengthening existing control measures, to be determined and prioritized D measures that do not involve infrastructure (e.g. policies, regulations,
for action (Module 5). Operational monitoring plans (Module 6) can then be management procedures, training for staff or contractors, user behaviour
developed to ensure that important control measures continue to function as change programmes).
intended.
Fig. 4.1 shows some examples of common control measures in drinking-water
supplies.
Module 4 relates to existing control measures (i.e. control measures that are
already in place).
New or strengthened control measures (i.e. measures that are not yet in place)
are considered in Module 5.

User education on safe
Local law banning Water treatment Quality assurance Diversion ditch to Proactive maintenance Treated water storage
Fencing around a household treatment
recreational activities in plant processes (e.g. procedures for protect pump station programme to reduce tank routine inspection
borehole site and storage in informal
the source water sedimentation; filtration) treatment chemicals from flood water pump breakdown programme settlements
Fig. 4.1 Examples of common control measures in a water supply
Monitoring on its own is not a

4.2.2 Validate the effectiveness of existing control measures
control measure.
Monitoring provides information
For each of the existing control measures that has been identified, validate their effectiveness in controlling the
about the performance of control associated hazardous event. This means establishing, using evidence or experienced judgement, that the control
measures but does not itself measures are capable of controlling the associated hazardous event.
directly prevent, eliminate or
reduce the risk of a hazardous Sources of evidence for control measure validation include:
event to an acceptable level.
However, monitoring linked to an D review of existing water quality monitoring data – for example, analysis of online monitoring data that show
automated corrective action may the history of non-compliant water at the outlet of a water treatment plant filter unit;
be considered a control measure.
An example is online monitoring for D targeted studies or investigations – for example, challenge testing of an ultraviolet (UV) light disinfection unit;
filtered water turbidity that triggers D visual inspections in the field – for example, to confirm whether a livestock exclusion fence is high enough
automatic plant shutdown above a and set back far enough from the water source; and
defined turbidity limit.
D published scientific literature or technical reports – for example, a scientific paper demonstrating the
efficacy of riparian vegetation strips in removing contaminants under varying rainfall, vegetation and ground
slope conditions. Care is needed to check that the circumstances described in any study or report are
comparable to the local context.
The effectiveness of each control measure should be determined in the context of its location in the water supply
rather than in isolation. This is because the performance of one control measure can influence the performance of
subsequent control measures. For example, poor performance of a roughing filter can reduce the effectiveness of
downstream coagulation/flocculation processes.
Table 4.1 gives examples of different types of control measure validation. A simplified example of control measure
validation through visual inspection and review of historical water quality data is presented in Table 4.2.

TABLE 4.1 • EXAMPLES OF CONTROL MEASURE VALIDATION METHODS
CONTROL MEASURE EXAMPLE OF VALIDATION APPROACH
Visual observation of the appropriateness of the fence design and its use, and analysis of historical water
Fence intended to keep animals away from a source water intake channel
quality data
Literature review indicating that a 300-metre vegetated buffer zone is sufficient to control sediment
Active enforcement of local regulation prohibiting logging within 300
transport; vegetation coverage and slopes in the review are comparable to those in the local catchment
metres of river bank
(Reference: Forestry management technical report on sediment control)
Dosing chlorine for a specified chlorine concentration (C) and contact National drinking-water guidelines giving Ct values required to control various pathogens across a range
time (t) to ensure the control of chlorine-sensitive pathogens of temperature and pH values (Reference: Country X national drinking-water guidelines)
Use of an alternative power source for filter backwash pumps, supplied Demonstration that the alternative power source switches on when power is lost, and has sufficient
through an on-site emergency generator power output to run the filter backwash pumps for a specified period of time
Review of validation records carried out by the manufacturer (i.e. “factory validation”), provided that the
UV light disinfection unit
validation conditions are comparable to the water supplier’s context
Maintenance of a minimum free chlorine residual concentration to control Review of historical heterotrophic plate count numbers in the distribution system water
the growth of biofilm-forming microorganisms in the distribution system Published evidence on the effectiveness of chlorine in controlling biofilms in distribution systems
Ongoing operator training, including refresher training on sanitary pipe Operator competency testing that indicates effective and applied learning from past training (Reference:
repair practices at defined frequencies (e.g. annually) training effectiveness surveys by in-house training department)

TABLE 4.2 • EXAMPLE OF CONTROL MEASURE VALIDATION FOR A LIVESTOCK EXCLUSION FENCE NEAR A SURFACE-WATER INTAKE
Existing control Are existing control measures effective?

Process Hazardous Hazard measure Validation notes
Yes No Somewhat
step event type description (i.e. the basis of validation)
Source River water M Fence intended Visual inspection shows that the fence has been designed with Not effective.
(surface- is microbially to keep large gaps between the fence panels, which may allow smaller Although a fence is
water intake) contaminated (X) livestock out of animals to enter the water body. Over the past 12 months, there theoretically capable
because of livestock the intake area has been visual evidence of animal faecal material on the ground. of excluding animals,
accessing the intake Water quality data over the past 12 months indicate that E. coli the existing control
area and faecal waste counts in the intake water have been high when upstream samples measure is not
entering the river (Y) do not show corresponding levels of contamination. effective in practice.
M: microbial.
4.2.3 Assess the risks
Assess the risk associated with each hazardous event. Where existing control measures have been identified and validated, consider
For effective control
the outcomes of the validation in the risk assessment.
measure validation,
the WSP team should Risk assessments allow a WSP team to determine which risks have the highest priority for action. Different risk assessment methods
engage with relevant
stakeholders, such as may be applied in water safety planning. WSP teams should carefully consider the risk assessment approach they adopt, to ensure
designers, construction that the approach is appropriate for the local context.10 Semi-quantitative risk assessments are commonly used, and are the focus of
teams and operations this module, as explained in Box 4.1.
and maintenance
staff. This approach Consider tailoring the definitions of likelihood and severity in Box 4.1 to suit the local context, ensuring that the principle of
helps the WSP team to safeguarding public health is never compromised in any of the definitions used. Ensure that the definitions for likelihood and severity
critically think about
the control measure are clear and are not open to interpretation – ambiguous definitions can be interpreted differently by different individuals or every
and discuss it in detail time the risks are reviewed. Clearly define the risk levels (e.g. low, medium, high) and the corresponding risk scores.
with those most familiar
with its operation Risk assessments should be specific for each drinking-water supply because each system is unique. The information used to inform
and limitations. Such the risk assessment will generally be based on expert judgement, informed by water supply data, investigative monitoring, the
understanding strongly
experience and knowledge of the WSP team and other stakeholders, industry best practice, and scientific literature and technical
supports the subsequent
risk assessment. reports. The information gathered and recorded in the system description (Module 2) should inform the risk assessment.
10 More basic types of risk assessment include sanitary inspections (WHO, in press) and descriptive risk assessment (i.e. based on WSP team judgement; WHO, 2012).
In settings with greater capacity and resources, quantitative microbial risk assessment (QMRA) may be used to assess microbial risks if the need exists (WHO, 2016b).

BOX 4.1 SEMI-QUANTITATIVE RISK ASSESSMENT
Semi-quantitative risk assessments use a risk matrix. For each hazard and hazardous event, this matrix defines the: C likelihood of occurrence C severity (or consequence).
In the example below, a five-by-five (5 × 5) risk matrix is used – that is, there are five rating options for likelihood and severity. Other combinations can be used (e.g. a more basic 3 × 3
risk assessment matrix; see WHO (2012)).
Likelihood and severity contextual definitions

LIKELIHOOD 5 × 5 risk assessment matrix
Rating Description Definition SEVERITY
Has not occurred in the past, and it is highly improbable that Insignificant Minor Moderate Major Catastrophic
1 Very unlikely
it will happen in the future 1 2 3 4 5
2 Unlikely Is possible and cannot be ruled out completely
1 2 3 4 5
Very unlikely 1
3 Likely Is possible and under certain circumstances could happen
Unlikely 2 2 4 6 8 10
Has occurred in the past and has the potential to happen
LIKELIHOOD
4 Very likely
again
Likely 3 3 6 9 12 15
5 Almost certain Has occurred in the past and is expected to happen again
Very likely 4 4 8 12 16 20
SEVERITY
Rating Description Definition Almost certain 5 5 10 15 20 25
1 Insignificant Negligible impact on water quality, acceptability or quantity
2 Minor
Short-term or localized non-compliance, quantity or RISK SCORE RISK LEVEL
acceptability issue (not health related) (likelihood × severity)
Long-term or widespread non-compliance, quantity or ≤5 Low
3 Moderate
acceptability issue (not health related) 6-14 Medium
4 Major Potential long-term health effects ≥15 High
5 Catastrophic Potential illness or death
The supplementary tool Module 4: examples of risk assessment matrices provides additional types of risk assessment matrices that could be considered
by the WSP team. Available at: https://wsportal.org/resource/wsp-manual-supplementary-tool-module-4-examples-of-risk-assessment-matrices/.

4.3 RECORDING THE OUTPUTS Considerations for progressive
FROM MODULE 4 improvement in Module 4
Control measure validation
Document the outputs from Module 4 in the WSP in a way that
facilitates easy and efficient review, and allows integration with In general, control measure validation should be as simple as possible for the given purpose. It is
useful to think of control measure validation as a continuum between two approaches.
the hazards and hazardous events identified in Module 3. This
is typically in the form of a simple risk assessment table that C Informal judgement-based validation: This validation is simple and relatively informal, and
systematically records: is suited to smaller and less complex water supplies for the majority of control measures. After
considering the evidence and observations, the control measure effectiveness is recorded as
D the hazards and hazardous events;
Yes, No or Somewhat. The basis for this decision should be recorded in the WSP to document the
D whether any existing control measures are in place and, if decision-making process. Use this approach when rigorous data-based validation is considered
so, validation of their effectiveness; and unnecessary or too complex for a particular context.
D the risk score and risk level. C Data-based validation: For more complex and better-resourced systems, more rigorous
data-based control measure validation may be suitable for some control measures. Historical
Record the WSP risk assessment methodology used, including the operational data, technical data from the scientific literature or data from studies at pilot
definitions used for likelihood and severity. Consider recording the drinking-water treatment plants may be helpful in this validation process.
rationale for the risk scores and the basis of any decisions made to
For early-stage water safety planning, informal judgement-based control measure validation may be
help ensure an unambiguous and consistent assessment of risks,
more suitable for most, if not all, control measures. Then, as the WSP matures, the WSP team gains
and for future reference (e.g. during WSP reviews or audits).
experience and more data are obtained, it may be appropriate to move towards a more rigorous data-
An example risk assessment table format is provided in Toolbox – based approach for validation of selected control measures (e.g. those that address significant risks).
Module 4. Table 4.3 illustrates how such a table may be applied.
Defining likelihood and severity
In the early stages of WSP development, WSP teams may consider adopting the definitions used for
likelihood and severity in Box 4.1 as a starting point. Over time, and as WSP experience is gained, the
team should then review these definitions and tailor them as needed (ensuring that the principle of
public health protection is never compromised) to ensure the best risk management decisions and
most appropriate allocation of resources.
The supplementary tool Module 4: examples of risk assessment matrices provides additional
examples of likelihood and severity definitions that could be considered and adapted by WSP teams.

TABLE 4.3 • EXAMPLE OF A RISK ASSESSMENT TABLE
Are existing control measures effective? Risk with controls in place**
Hazard type
Somewhat
Likelihood
Risk score
Risk level
Existing control
Severity
Process Hazardous measure Validation
Yes
No
No.* step event description notes
Less water is available per person (X)
Medium
Source No existing control
2 because of increased demand from a Q Not applicable - - - 3 3 9
(catchment) measure
proposed new power plant (Y)
Standby (back-up)
Chlorine concentration in the treated Operational logs demonstrate
chlorine pump in
water leaving the treatment plant successful monthly testing of
Medium
Treatment place in addition
4 is too low for effective disinfection M changeover from duty pump to standby ✓ - - 2 5 10
(chlorination) to duty pump,
(X) because of chlorine pump pump. No historical incident of loss of
with automatic
breakdown (Y) chlorination due to pump breakdown.
switchover
Storage tank water is intentionally
Distribution Field logbook has recorded no historical
contaminated (X) because of
Low
5 (storage M, A, C Security fencing security incidents, and overall crime ✓ - - 1 5 5
vandalism following unauthorized
tank) rates are low in the jurisdiction
access to the storage tank (Y)
Active
Contaminants (e.g. soil, Field inspections indicate that pipe
implementation
Distribution groundwater) enter an open section repair procedures are seldom complied
of the standard
High
6 (piped of replacement pipe in the repair M, A with. Customer register historically - ✓ - 4 4 16
operating
network) trench (X) because of unsanitary shows a spike in dirty water complaints
procedures for
repair procedures (Y) following pipe repairs.
pipe repair
Water at the household is
User level
contaminated (X) because of poor No existing
High
8 (user M Not applicable - - - 4 4 16
cleaning and maintenance of rooftop control measure
premises)
storage tanks by householders (Y)
A: acceptability hazard; C: chemical hazard; M: microbial hazard; Q: quantity-related hazard; R: radiological hazard.
* As per Table 3.2.
** This risk can also be referred to as “residual risk”. Refer to the note on P. 55 for more information.

Important note on Table 4.3: single-stage and dual-stage risk assessment approaches
To determine where additional or improved control measures are needed, risk assessments must take account
of existing control measures and their effectiveness. The result is considered “residual risk” – that is, the risk that
remains after allowing for the effectiveness of the existing control measures (as illustrated in Table 4.3). This is often
referred to as a single-stage risk assessment.
In some cases, however, WSP teams may find it valuable to:
D first assess the “raw” risk in the (hypothetical) absence of existing control measures; and then
D assess the residual risk.
This is often referred to as a dual-stage risk assessment. This approach can be particularly useful to enable the
WSP team to identify which control measures are significant, by assessing the impact on the risk level if the control
measure fails. Annex 4 describes the dual-stage risk assessment approach in more detail.
For illustrative purposes in this manual, the Module 4 example applies a single-stage risk assessment.
This does not suggest that one approach is superior to the other. The WSP team should decide whether
a single- or dual-stage risk assessment methodology is best suited to their particular context, needs and
water safety planning experience.

Prioritizing risks effectively Dealing with uncertainties in the risk

assessment
If the WSP team finds that the risk assessment results in many significant risks
(e.g. with a risk level of “high”), it can be difficult to effectively prioritize these A WSP team will often have information gaps when validating control measures
risks and focus limited resources where they are most needed. and assessing risks – this should not be a barrier to progress. Document the
information gaps, and the assumptions made in the absence of this information.
Such an outcome may indicate that:
When there are significant uncertainties related to the validation or risk
i. the WSP team has been overly conservative in its initial assessment of assessment, it may be appropriate to assume that the control measure is not
risk; effective and/or the risk is significant until the necessary information becomes
available to demonstrate otherwise.
ii. the risk definitions and/or risk matrix selected are not appropriate for the
local context; or
iii. there are genuinely many significant risks that have to better managed.
Validating control measures under different
In the case of (i) and (ii), the WSP team can revisit the scores allocated to scenarios
likelihood and severity to make sure that they accurately represent the actual
risk posed by the hazardous event. This might involve seeking external support Evidence of safe drinking-water supply under normal conditions is not sufficient
(e.g. from a public health expert, sanitary engineering expert). The team should to demonstrate safety – control measures must also be effective under
also consider if the risk definitions and risk matrix used are appropriate to exceptional conditions. WSP teams should consider past exceptional events
adequately differentiate between the risk levels. In the case of (iii), guidance on or likely future scenarios, and assess the probable effectiveness of the control
prioritizing improvement actions is provided in section 5.4. measures under these conditions. For example, challenge testing protocols
can be developed to simulate event conditions (e.g. simulating high pathogen
loading to a UV light disinfection system following failure of an upstream
treatment process).
Validating control measures under different scenarios is particularly relevant

when considering climate risks, particularly if an existing control measure has
been historically validated for less challenging conditions (see Box 4.2).

BOX 4.2 EXAMPLE OF CONTROL MEASURE VALIDATION IN THE CONTEXT OF A CHANGING CLIMATE
SCENARIO: A water supplier has a flood defence wall to protect a source water pumping The table below indicates how this important climate consideration could be documented in
station from flooding. If the flood wall is breached, the electrical pump will fail, affecting the the WSP using a 5 × 5 risk assessment matrix. This risk table has been modified to include
quantity of water that can be supplied to the town. the option to assess the current risk from this hazardous event, as well as the anticipated
future effect on the risk profile as a result of the climatic and hydrological projections.
The height of the defence wall is considered to be adequate to manage the current risk
from flooding. However, a new climate vulnerability assessment for the river basin has been In this example, the current risk level for this hazardous event is “medium”. However, in the
published, which indicates that the frequency of heavy rainfall and large-scale flooding future, the effectiveness of the existing control measure (the flood defence wall) is likely
events is projected to increase over the next 10 years. The WSP team sought ad hoc to be reduced based on the most likely projections for future river height and flooding.
support from the regional bureau of hydrology, which indicated that localized modelling This increases the likelihood of the hazardous event occurring, resulting in the risk level
suggests that peak river heights during these events are anticipated to increase by a factor being elevated to “high”. Action is therefore needed to effectively manage this risk in
of 2 over the same time frame. This means that the existing flood defence wall will be the future. Improvement actions to address this risk, and the appropriate timeframe for
inadequate to control the risk of pump station flooding in the future. implementation, can be addressed through an improvement plan in Module 5.
Are existing control measures effective? Risk with controls in place

Hazard type
Existing
Somewhat
Likelihood
Risk score
Risk level
control
Severity
Process Hazardous measure Time Validation
Yes
No
step event description frame notes
Historical flood and river height data indicate that the existing
Source water wall height is sufficient to protect against past severe flooding.
Medium
pump fails Flood This has been corroborated through a review of the water
(X) because defence wall Current supplier’s emergency incident records, which do not indicate ✓ - - 2 4 8
of electrical between any historical breaches of the flood defence wall.
Source
failure following Q river and
(catchment) Visual inspection indicates that the wall is in good condition.
inundation of source
pump station water pump A climate vulnerability assessment report and hydrological
during flood station modelling indicate that flood events will become more frequent
High
Futurea - ✓ - 4 4 16
event (Y) over the next decade, and river height during such events is
projected to rise above the current defence wall height
Q: quantity-related hazard.
a Based on the most likely climate change scenario for a 10-year horizon.

WHO provides specific guidance at different stages of the water supply to support the identification
and validation of control measures, and assessment of risk, including:
water sources (WHO, 2006), Chapters 16–25.
managing drinking-water quality risks in surface-water catchments (WHO, 2016a), Chapter 3 and
section 4.3.
D Distribution network – Water safety in distribution systems (WHO, 2014), sections 3.3 and
4.1–4.3.
D User premises – Water safety in buildings (WHO, 2011a), sections 2.3, 4.7 and 4.8.
variability and change. Section 5.3 gives information on integrating climate considerations into
Module 4. Table 3 (section 5.5) gives detailed examples of control measures for specific hazards and
hazardous events that may be exacerbated by climate impacts.
WHO (2022). Sanitation safety planning: manual for step-by-step risk management for safely managed
sanitation systems. Tools 3.4 and 3.7 provide an alternative approach to considering climate aspects in
the risk assessment table, which can be adapted for water safety planning.
The Aquatown water safety plan: worked example provides examples of identification and validation of
control measures, and risk assessment for select hazards and hazardous events. Available at: https://www.
who.int/publications/i/item/9789240067691.

MODULE Planning for improvement
5 What needs to be improved to ensure the supply of safe drinking-water, and how?
START HERE
Aim WSP DEVELOPMENT
To develop and implement a progressive improvement plan for new or Improvement plans
prepared here based on
strengthened control measures to ensure that risks are reduced to an
the outcomes of the risk
acceptable level assessment
Key actions
WSP REVIEW
D Select the hazardous events needing additional control AND UPDATE
WSP OPERATION
D Develop a plan for improvement Improvement plans
Improvement plans
reviewed regularly
D Implement the improvement plan progressively
and as required here,
implemented here
and updated
Key outputs as needed
D Detailed improvement plan for hazardous events that require additional

control
WSP VERIFICATION
D Implementation of the improvement plan to reduce risks to an acceptable
See Module 7
level
Key term
Improvement plan: An action plan for improving the level of control for a
hazardous event, thereby reducing the level of risk
Module 5 in action

5.1 WHY DO WE PLAN FOR IMPROVEMENT?
Improvement planning aims to continuously improve the level of control to
reduce water supply risks. It builds on Module 4, which determines where MODULE 3 MODULE 4 MODULE 5
improvements are needed.
What could go wrong? What controls are in What needs to be
An improvement plan documents the water supply improvements that have place? improved?
been prioritized for action, and provides timelines and accountability for What are the
hazardous events and Are they effective? How do we make
implementing these improvements. Improvement planning should achieve hazards that threaten these improvements?
stepwise, progressive improvement in risk management, with a particular focus the water supply? How significant are
on the highest risks, thereby using limited resources in the most effective way. the risks?
Improvement planning also enables actions to be integrated into financial

planning cycles and budgets, which may assist with the implementation of
priority improvements. Fig. 5.1 Progression between WSP modules 3, 4 and 5
Fig. 5.1 summarizes the key questions addressed in Modules 3, 4 and 5 and the
progression between these modules.
5.2 PLANNING FOR IMPROVEMENT – KEY ACTIONS
5.2.1 Select the hazardous events needing to decide whether an improvement is needed for the control of a hazardous
event. For example, the WSP team could establish a risk score cut-off point of
additional control
6, above which additional control should be prioritized for action, and below
which the risk will be kept under review. Regardless of the approach taken to
Based on the outcomes from the risk assessment in Module 4, determine which
selecting hazardous events that require additional control, it should be agreed
hazardous events require an improvement plan.
by the WSP team and documented in the WSP.
WSP teams can decide which hazardous events require additional control by
For hazardous events that do not need improvement (i.e. are under control),
simply relying on the judgement of the team members. Alternatively, the team
there is no further action in Module 5.
may start with the risks designated as “high” or use a risk score cut-off point

5.2.2 Develop a plan for improvement 5.2.3 Implement the improvement plan
For the hazardous events that are selected for improvement, decide what new or Implement the improvement plan according to the assigned timelines.
strengthened control measures are required and develop an improvement plan.
Monitor the implementation of the improvement plan to confirm that the
The improvement plan should address: improvements are progressing or have been completed. If delays are
experienced, document the reasons and the revised timelines in the
D the specific improvement action needed;
improvement plan table (see section 5.3).
D which issue the improvement arises from;
D the person(s) or party(ies) responsible for the improvements; At regular intervals, the WSP team should review the status of the
D the estimated cost of the improvement (or indicative costs, such as low, improvement plan and report as appropriate to senior management (see
medium or high cost); Module 10).
D the proposed source of funding (e.g. internal budgets, stakeholder budgets, Once an improvement is implemented, update the corresponding section
regional/national funds); of the risk assessment table in Module 4 – that is, reassess the risk,
D the due date for completing the improvement; and taking into account the effectiveness of the new or strengthened control
D the status of the improvement (e.g. not yet started, delayed, in progress, measures.
completed).
Include any new or strengthened control measures in the operational
Consider how the proposed improvement actions may affect equity outcomes. monitoring plan (see Module 6).
For example, elimination of illegal connections in the water supply is important
to ensure the integrity and safety of a distribution network; however, alternative
connection options may be required to ensure that this measure does not Once a new or strengthened control measure is to be put in place, check
for any new risks introduced as a result of the improvement.
disproportionately affect disadvantaged users who are unable to pay for a metered
For example, installation of a diesel-powered generator to manage risks
connection. Seek feedback from the community on the most appropriate control
associated with power outages at a water treatment plant could require
measures and secure their support. If a control measure could affect equity, on-site storage of fuel drums. This may pose a new risk – e.g. chemical
consider modifying it or selecting an alternative, or consider compensation contamination of the underground water storage tank because of a fuel
measures to avoid any unintentional harm or discrimination for vulnerable groups. spillage - which should now be included in the risk assessment.
Note that a single implemented improvement may affect the risk
assessment for several hazardous events.
In some cases, water suppliers may already have plans in place for specific
improvements (e.g. registers containing planned asset upgrades or replacements).
Such plans should be reviewed and updated as needed, and included (or referenced)
in the WSP, ensuring that the improvement actions are clearly linked to the
corresponding hazardous event, in line with the WSP approach.

5.3 RECORDING THE OUTPUTS FROM MODULE 5
Document the outputs from Module 5 in a way that clearly links to the Module Toolbox – Module 5 provides a template for recording and reporting on
4 risk assessment table, and allows easy review to measure progress. For improvement plans. Table 5.1 gives an example to show how such a table may
example, a unique identifier code can be added to each hazardous event in be applied.
the risk assessment table, and the same code can be used in the improvement
plan.
TABLE 5.1 • EXAMPLE IMPROVEMENT PLAN

SPECIFIC IMPROVEMENT ARISING RESPONSIBLE ESTIMATED SOURCE OF DUE
STATUS
ACTION FROM PARTY(IES) COST FUNDING DATEb
Risk of reduced water availability arising Ministry of

Deferred for 2 years
Long-term capital investment from increased demand from a proposed Water Resource Central government
Within 5 pending availability
programme to provide new new power plant Management (liaising $75 000 capital infrastructure
years of additional donor
water source with the water programme
Risk assessment table reference:a No. 2 funding
supplier)
Refresher training for Distribution

operators on sanitary pipe Risk of contamination following unsanitary network supervisor General training budget
pipe repair practices Within 3
repair practices, linked (liaising with $1000 (Human Resources Completed
months
to routine field-based Risk assessment table reference:a No. 6 Human Resources Department)
competency checks Department)
User education and Risk of microbial contamination from a Local NGO (liaising
behaviour change lack of routine storage tank cleaning and with water supplier Within 12
maintenance by households $2500 NGO operational budget In progress
programme targeting and landholder months
households Risk assessment table reference:a No. 8 authority)
a As per Table 4.3.

b Generic time frames are provided in this table for illustrative purposes. In practice, an actual date should be provided in the improvement plan.

5.4 CHALLENGES AND PRACTICAL Considerations for progressive
SOLUTIONS
A stepwise approach towards full implementation of an optimal solution is often needed
because of resource constraints and/or budgetary planning cycles.
Identifying improvement options in the
absence of funding Often, levels of risk can be reduced by strengthening operating procedures or process
controls, rather than implementing expensive treatment or other infrastructure options.
Significant resources may be needed for improvements, and WSP teams will For example, if an activity is known to be effective but is not being done in practice, a
refresher training course for staff provided through an existing human resources budget
often identify improvement measures in the absence of the funding needed
may be all that is needed. These types of improvements should take priority if they
to implement the improvement plan.
provide an adequate reduction in the risk level.
Such measures should always be recorded in the WSP, regardless of the
Take an approach that considers what can be done right now to reduce the risk level
availability of funding. Doing this means that the improvement measures given the available resources – often referred to as “no-cost/low-cost” improvement
are on the record, and can assist in planning budgetary cycles and securing measures. Such measures may provide a small but immediate improvement in risk
funds from other sources. It can also demonstrate to an auditor or regulatory management, often with little additional cost. Longer-term improvement measures can
authority that risks have been systematically prioritized and are in the then be planned and delivered in parallel, which will ultimately reduce the risk to an
process of being addressed. acceptable level. An example of this approach is shown in the figure below.
If the improvement plan will take a significant amount of time to implement

(e.g. months to years), the WSP team should, where possible, identify shorter- WITHIN WITHIN WITHIN
term measures to reduce the risk level in the interim (see Case study 5.1). 1 MONTH 9 MONTHS 18 MONTHS
Operator manually checks Installation of online free Online chlorine residual
the free chlorine residual chlorine residual monitor alarm linked to a 24/7
Addressing improvements in the catchment concentration at exit of the
water treatment plant 3
with alarm that sounds at
the water treatment plant
automated dialer to notify
the on-call operator of an
times per day. in the event of an exceedance.
exceedance.
Improvements in the catchment are often the most challenging to implement
and often require longer-term improvement plans. Certain improvement
actions in the catchment may require coordination between the water
supplier and other stakeholders, and financial contributions from several Higher RISK LEVEL Lower
parties.
Example of a progressive improvement approach for strengthening chlorine monitoring
In such situations, it can be beneficial to take a longer-term, staged approach at a water treatment plant
to managing catchment risks, as illustrated in Box 5.1.

Making decisions on improvement needs Improvement planning in the face of a
considering other factors in addition to risk changing and uncertain climate
reduction
The uncertainty surrounding future climate change projections can
In practice, risk reduction may not be the sole criterion used by WSP present challenges to water suppliers when deciding the priority
teams when deciding on the priority of improvements. When considering and timing for implementing improvement plans. To manage this,
improvements (especially those involving larger capital upgrades), other factors one strategy is to consider control measures that provide benefit
may also be considered, including: under multiple climate scenarios. For example, measures such
as implementing vegetation buffers around water sources or
D cost of the control measure; strengthening sanitation management practices in the catchment may
D how easily the control measure can be implemented; protect water sources over a broad range of future projections for
rainfall. Such measures are often referred to as “no-regret/low-regret”
D technical effectiveness of the proposed control measure;
improvements.
D reliability of the control measure;
Improvement planning should also be as flexible and adaptable as
D operation and maintenance requirements (e.g. need for technical training,
possible to respond to new climate information or the emergence of
availability of technical support, supply chains for replacement parts);
previously unforeseen threats. For example, budgetary cycles could be
D regulatory acceptance and/or political will to implement the measure; made flexible so that improvement measures can be brought forward
D equity benefits the control measure will achieve for disadvantaged or delayed in response to dynamic threats or new climate information.
groups;
When planning improvement actions to manage longer-term climate
D cultural and behavioural acceptance of the control measure in the local risks, it is important not to lose sight of current priority risks to the
context; and system. For example, in a water supply that currently lacks chlorination,
D effectiveness of the control measure under the most likely future climate planning and resource allocation to manage projected flooding
change scenarios. impacts in 20 years time should not be prioritized at the expense of the
more immediate provision of effective disinfection capacity. Rather, the
WSP teams may choose criteria that are important in their own context, and
current significant risks should be prioritized for action, in parallel with
decide on appropriate weighting for each criterion, as illustrated in Box 5.2.
activities that will help to manage longer-term threats. In this example,
providing adequate disinfection would result in immediate gains in
drinking-water safety, and also provide enhanced resilience over
broad-ranging climate projections.

EXAMPLE OF LONGER-TERM EXAMPLE OF A CRITERIA WEIGHTING APPROACH TO
BOX 5.1 BOX 5.2 SELECTING IMPROVEMENTS
IMPROVEMENT PLANNING AT THE
SOURCE (CATCHMENT) STAGE
A water supplier was considering two options to manage the rapid changes in source water
SCENARIO: A water supplier is beginning to experience mild cyanobacterial turbidity following intense rainfall in the catchment, which were expected to become more
(“blue–green algal”) blooms in a source water reservoir as a result of run-off frequent and severe in the future. The options assessed were:
containing fertilizers from an adjacent farm. Deterioration of the situation
C Option A – online monitoring of source water turbidity linked to an automated alarm
in the future will increase the risks from cyanobacterial taste and odour
system and plant shutdown; and
compounds in the water during seasonal blooms, and may lead to harmful
toxin production. C Option B – manual stoppage of abstraction once source water turbidity limits are
exceeded.
To address this issue, the following improvement measures were agreed
to through successive rounds of consultation and negotiation between the The WSP team considered the criteria in the table below to be the most important
water supplier and the relevant catchment stakeholders. when selecting improvements, weighting each item according to its significance to the
water supplier (1 = lowest weight; 2 = highest weight). Using WSP team judgement, a
C Shorter term: The farmer agreed to immediately restrict fertilizer corresponding score was applied to rank each criterion (1 = lowest score; 3 = highest score).
application to outside an agreed buffer zone 300 metres from the
reservoir edge. Any loss of income as a result of this measure will be This approach allowed the WSP team to select option A on the basis of the priority score,
covered by the local farmers association. considering the most locally significant weighted factors.
C Medium term: Over the next 3 years, the catchment management As an interim measure, the WSP team implemented option B in the short term, while the
authority has agreed to plant a fast-growing native vegetation strip necessary funds for option A were being sourced.
between the reservoir and the field, to act as a buffer for nutrient-
loaded surface-water run-off. The costs will be covered jointly by the
Criterion Weight Score Weight x score
catchment management authority and the water supplier.
Option A Option B Option A Option B
C Longer term. The water supplier will monitor the water quality during
the 3-year planting period. If required, they will upgrade the water Risk reduction 2 3 1 6 2
treatment plant by year 5 with additional treatment capacity to manage Cost-effectiveness 1.5 2 3 3 4.5
the risk from cyanobacteria.
Technical effectiveness 1.25 3 2 3.75 2.5
This example highlights an adaptive approach to improvement planning, Resilience to most likely
1.25 3 1 3.75 1.25
where planned improvements can be revisited once additional information climate change projections
has been gathered during the intervening period. Priority score (sum for each option) out of a total of 18 16.5 10.25

CASE STUDY 5.1
STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVEMENT PLAN ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE FOR MODULE 5
IMPLEMENTATION WHERE RESOURCES
ARE LIMITED, SOUTH AFRICA Guidance on control measures presented in Module 4 is also relevant to Module 5.
To combat inadequate funding for implementation of improvements identified WHO (2019). A guide to equitable water safety planning: ensuring no one is left
through water safety planning, a process was put in place to secure funds by behind. Sections 2d–2f have specific guidance on how to ensure that improvement
presenting the improvement plan to municipal council members for approval, planning delivers equitable benefits for all users of the system, and avoid
followed by integration into municipal development plans. unintentional adverse effects.
The WSP team also identified several no-cost/low-cost improvements that

municipalities could implement in parallel to the lengthier approval process for The Aquatown water safety plan: worked example provides examples of developing
larger improvements. These included: improvement plans for significant risks. Available at: https://www.who.int/
publications/i/item/9789240067691.
C improving procurement procedures for quicker turnaround time on
essential materials;
C conducting an awareness campaign within the community to reduce water
losses associated with illegal connections, theft and vandalism;
C building staff capacity to perform jar tests and interpret results; and
C developing a calibration programme for laboratory equipment.
In addition, the risk-based improvement plan was used to attract funding from
a donor agency. A funding arrangement in which the donor agency provided
half the funding was secured, based on the condition that the municipalities
committed to stepwise implementation of the required improvement actions.

MODULE Monitoring control measures
6 Are the control measures operating as intended?
START HERE
Aim
To define and implement an operational monitoring plan that determines WSP DEVELOPMENT
whether the water supply’s control measures are operating as intended Operational monitoring
plan prepared here
Key actions
D Identify the control measures to be monitored
D Develop an operational monitoring plan for the control measures, including WSP REVIEW WSP OPERATION
establishing performance limits and defining corrective actions AND UPDATE
D Implement the operational monitoring plan and use it to inform timely Operational monitoring
Operational monitoring plan implemented
operational decisions plan (and associated here to check control
data) reviewed regularly measure performance
Key outputs and as required here, and inform timely
and updated as needed corrective action
Documented operational monitoring plan that is implemented regularly to monitor
if required
whether the control measures are operating within acceptable limits, and ensure
that timely corrective action is taken when predefined limits are not met
Key terms WSP VERIFICATION
Operational monitoring plan: A plan to monitor control measures to ensure See Module 7
that they work as intended, and that proper and timely corrective action is taken
when predefined limits are not met
Critical limit: An operational limit that separates acceptable performance from
unacceptable performance of the control measure, triggering corrective action
Corrective action: Action taken when operational monitoring indicates that the
Module 6 in action
control measure is not working as intended

6.1 WHY DO WE MONITOR CONTROL
MEASURES?
Control measures play a vital role in safe drinking-water management and need
to function effectively at all times to control risk. Monitoring of control measures
provides rapid feedback about their
performance, and informs operators
when a control measure is not
Routine monitoring of
control measures is one of the
performing within predefined limits. most important water safety
This allows timely corrective action planning activities and is central
to be taken to prevent drinking-water to proactive risk management
safety being compromised (Fig. 6.1).
6.2 MONITORING CONTROL

MEASURES – KEY ACTIONS
6.2.1 Select the control measures to be
monitored
Based on the existing control measures identified in Module 4, decide which Fig. 6.1 Benefits of operational monitoring of control measures
control measures require an operational monitoring plan. Ensure that there is a
clear linkage between the existing control measures in the risk assessment table
and the operational monitoring plan.
Water suppliers may already monitor control measures as part of their operational
activities. If so, the WSP team should conduct an initial assessment to determine
Minimally, a control measure should have a corresponding operational which control measures are already being monitored, and where operational
monitoring plan if the WSP team considers it to be a critical barrier to keeping monitoring gaps may exist. The existing operational monitoring plan should be
the risk to an acceptable level. Fig. 6.2 gives an example of a simplified decision strengthened as needed, based on the guidance provided in this module.
tree.11 Links to more sophisticated decision-based approaches are given in
Additional guidance for Module 6.
11 Application of the dual-stage risk assessment approach can also support WSP teams to identify which control measures are critical to keeping the risk to an acceptable level. See Annex 4 for more
information.

D When monitoring will be conducted. Choose a frequency for monitoring.
Look at each existing control measure in your risk table and the This should take into account the parameter’s variability and how critical
hazardous event it is designed to manage
the parameter is to public health (e.g. free chlorine residual concentration
is both highly variable and critical to the microbiological safety of the
drinking-water, so should be monitored regularly, ideally via online
Is the control measure critical to keeping the
risk to an acceptable level? monitoring).
D How it will be monitored. Determine how the parameter will be
monitored (e.g. observations or measurements; see Table 6.1).
Yes No
D Who will do the monitoring. Choose the person who will conduct the
Operational monitoring Operational monitoring monitoring (e.g. water treatment plant technician, network operator, water
plan needed plan not needed (e.g. meter reader).
manage within standard
operating procedure) D Critical limit that defines the limit of acceptability for the control
measure’s performance. Define critical limits to ensure that corrective
action is taken before the drinking-water becomes unsafe. These might
Fig. 6.2 Basic decision tree to help determine whether a control measure requires an
operational monitoring plan be a series of graded limits (see Case study 6.1).
D Corrective action to be taken if performance limits are breached.
6.2.2 Develop an operational monitoring plan Decide what corrective actions are required to restore acceptable
performance of the control measure, who is responsible for taking these
For each existing control measure that requires monitoring, develop a tailored actions and any reporting requirements.
operational monitoring plan. Document the following in the operational
Summarize this information in the operational monitoring plan. More detailed
monitoring plan.
standard operating procedures can be developed to guide operational staff on
D What parameters will be monitored. Choose monitoring parameters how to conduct the operational monitoring and corrective actions (Module 8).
that are observable (e.g. through visual inspection) or require simple
measurements. Ideally, monitoring should use rapid tests (e.g. on-
Operational monitoring should always be:
site or portable testing equipment) or online (continuous) monitoring
☑ Simple – uncomplicated to perform
instrumentation, so that corrective action can be taken promptly (see ☑ Rapid – quick to carry out and with fast, reliable results
Table 6.1). ☑ Routine – incorporated into normal operations
☑ Objective – providing clear guidance on acceptable performance of the
D Where they will be monitored. Determine the location in the water supply control measure
for monitoring (e.g. sample point at the outlet of a chlorine contact tank).

TABLE 6.1 • EXAMPLES OF OPERATIONAL 6.2.3 Implement the operational monitoring plan
MONITORING PARAMETERS
TYPE OF OPERATIONAL EXAMPLES OF PARAMETERS TO BE Implement the operational monitoring plan as part of routine operations. Undertake monitoring at
MONITORING MONITORED
the assigned frequencies, and ensure that corrective actions are taken promptly (see Fig. 6.3 for a
Observations Condition of a livestock fence at summary of operational monitoring in action).
the source water intake
Formation of floc in a coagulation Assess monitoring data frequently to gain insights into how the water supply is working, and
tank at the water treatment plant where improvement is needed. Regularly examine and critically review the operational monitoring
Structural integrity of a flood results, and act on any deviation from established trends (e.g. changes in network pressure). Such
defence wall deviations may indicate that a problem is about to occur, so that preventive maintenance is needed
Status of a storage tank hatch (e.g. (e.g. changes in filter run times may indicate the need to replace filter media).
open/closed, locked/unlocked)
Household storage and handling The results from operational monitoring should be used on an ongoing basis to inform control
practices measure validation (Module 4) and WSP reviews (Module 10). These data can also be used for
Measurements Coagulant dose pump rate developing historical water quality trends (e.g. establishing seasonal water quality patterns). The
Water level (head) in filter unit data may also support setting appropriate and effective critical limits.
Filtered water turbidity
Flow rate through the water
treatment plant
Free chlorine residual
concentration in water carting tank
Operational Operational
monitoring plan: monitoring results:
Pressure in distribution pipeline Yes, within Continue monitoring as per
What to monitor, Is the control measure
where, when, performing as intended the limits operational monitoring plan
how, who? What is (i.e. are data within the
acceptable limit? predefined limits)?
Ensure that the relevant operational staff are clearly
assigned the responsibility, and the necessary authority
and resources, to take the appropriate corrective actions
No, limits are Corrective action
in the event of a critical limit breach. Consider setting a
breached is needed
period of time by which action should be taken to prevent
the delivery of unsafe drinking-water to consumers.
Fig. 6.3 Implementing operational monitoring to inform operators about the need for corrective action

6.3 RECORDING THE OUTPUTS FROM MODULE 6
Tool 6a (Toolbox – Module 6) provides a template for recording the operational Tool 6b (Toolbox – Module 6) provides guidance on developing basic log
monitoring plan. Table 6.2 gives an example. sheets for recording operational monitoring data.
Translate the operational monitoring plan into operator-friendly data recording Consider the use of information technology solutions such as mobile phone
systems and ensure that it is part of normal operational duties. For example, applications (“apps”) that can digitize the data collection process. This can
hard-copy logbooks or data recording sheets kept in the field could be used. make data analysis easier (e.g. to see trends), and allow more efficient action
and reporting.
TABLE 6.2 • OPERATIONAL MONITORING PLAN EXAMPLES

CORRECTIVE ACTION IF
PROCESS CONTROL WHAT TO CRITICAL ACCEPTABLE LIMITS ARE
WHERE WHEN HOW WHO
STEP MEASURE MONITOR LIMIT(S) BREACHED (what action and who
is responsible, or refer to SOP)
Duty/standby chlorine
pumps with automatic At the Manual check Successful duty/ Follow SOP for chlorine dose
Treatment switchover Duty/standby Once per Treatment pump failure
chlorine of duty/standby stand by pump
(chlorination) pump changeover month operator
Risk assessment table dose pump changeover function changeover By: Treatment operator
reference:a No.4
Fence in good
Distribution/ Security fencing Condition of At the Distribution condition Repair fence or gate within 1 day
storage Risk assessment table security fence and storage Weekly Visual observation system
(storage tank) gate tank facility operator Gate closed and By: Distribution supervisor
reference:a No. 5
locked securely
Visual observation of
Pipe repair pipe repair practices Sanitary pipe repair Follow SOP for pipe repairs
Active implementation of practices In the field practised
Distribution SOPs for pipe repair Following Turbidity and free Conduct additional training for
Turbidity and free at the Network
(piped every pipe chlorine residual Turbidity <5 NTU operator
Risk assessment table chlorine residual location of supervisor
network) repair measurement (field- Free chlorine By: Network supervisor or
reference:a No.6 levels after pipe the repair
test kit) residual >0.5 mg/L operator
reinstatement
mg/L: milligrams per litre; NTU: nephelometric turbidity unit; SOP: standard operating procedure.
a As per Table 4.3.

6.4 CHALLENGES AND PRACTICAL
Considerations for progressive SOLUTIONS
Prioritizing operational monitoring Embedding operational monitoring into routine
During the early cycles of WSP development and implementation where practice
monitoring resources are limited, WSP teams may decide to monitor only the
control measures that are critical for the safety of the drinking-water supply. Operational monitoring is the backbone of WSP implementation, and requires
Although highly system specific, the measurements may include:
routine and regular attention by operational staff. However, often there is a lack
C raw water turbidity at the intake; of awareness of the importance of operational monitoring. As well, monitoring
practices may be seen as too onerous or inconvenient to incorporate into daily
C pH of dosed water for coagulation/flocculation;
operational routines. To address these issues, consider the following.
C clarified water turbidity;
C filtered water turbidity (ideally at the outlet of each filter unit, where D Ensure that operational monitoring logbooks or record sheets are easy to
multiple units are in place); and access (e.g. next to the control measure in the field, where practical).
C pH and free chlorine residual concentration D Ensure that monitoring data are easy to record by minimizing the data to be
recorded (e.g. requiring only monitoring result, date, corrective action taken,
D at the exit point of the water treatment plant
operator’s initials).
D in treated water storages
D Migrate entry of monitoring data to simple mobile apps (e.g. smartphones,
D at strategic points throughout the distribution network.
tablets).
These measurements should be supplemented with visual inspections at D Install online monitoring for key control measures (including automated
key points in the water supply (e.g. integrity of a livestock exclusion fence alarms in the event of limit breaches).
around an intake).
D Establish internal management procedures to ensure that operational
Operational monitoring should be progressively expanded to include monitoring is performed correctly and at the required frequency, and that the
additional control measures during subsequent cycles of WSP development. results are recorded, acted upon and reported as required.
D Conduct operator training on the new operational monitoring plans and
refresher training, where necessary, for existing or modified plans.
D Include operational monitoring as part of key performance indicators for
operators and operational teams.

Establishing context-appropriate critical limits Ensuring that operational monitoring delivers
and corrective actions equitable benefit to all users
Defining effective critical limits and corrective actions in the operational Operational monitoring plans often omit vulnerable users; they may benefit
monitoring plan can be challenging for early-stage WSP teams. However, only certain user groups, while others continue to experience an unsafe,
this is a critically important component of Module 6 because it ensures safe unacceptable or insufficient water supply. For example, monitoring may detect
system management and effective use of limited operational resources. When adequate free chlorine residual concentration throughout the main branches of
developing these components of an operational monitoring plan, consider the the network, but informal settlements may continue to receive drinking-water
following. that is not sufficiently chlorinated – an issue that would go unnoticed if the
operational monitoring plan is not designed equitably.
D Establish critical limits based on scientific evidence (e.g. filtered water
turbidity, free chlorine residual, pH). When developing and implementing the operational monitoring plan, the WSP
Ensure that corrective actions are documented, including responsibilities team should:
D
for carrying out the actions. consider the diversity of user groups identified in the system description
D
D Ensure that there are sufficient resources and training to carry out (Module 2);
monitoring, data analysis and corrective actions. note the intended beneficiaries of each control measure; and
D
D Establish a review process for analysing corrective actions taken to ensure that the control measures are in place for, and experienced
D
ensure that: equally by, all the intended user groups.
C the actions had the intended effect
C there were no unintended outcomes.
In some cases, operational monitoring plans may need to be flexible and

adaptable. For example, monitoring of a source water intake might need to
be less frequent during the wet season when access is difficult and unsafe. In
contrast, more frequent monitoring of free chlorine residual concentration in the
distribution system may be required during times of heavy rainfall to ensure that
adequate free chlorine residual concentrations are maintained throughout the
entire network.

CASE STUDY 6.1 SETTING LIMITS TO TRIGGER APPROPRIATE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS Control measure performance
Acceptable
A critical limit: indicates control of the process is
Experiences from Australia lost and drinking-water safety is not guaranteed.
To ensure that appropriate corrective action was taken for exceedances relating to suboptimal coagulation, the water
supplier established the following escalating limits for control measure functioning: An adjustment limit (or alert limit): indicates
the point where adjustment is needed to restore
Deviations from the target value result in operator intervention. The urgency and extent of this intervention depend on control and avoid the alarm limit being reached.
the nature and seriousness of the deviation – ranging from optimizing the coagulation process to shutting down the
water treatment plant. A target value (or range): represents optimal
control of the process.
Unacceptable
The extract below from an operational monitoring plan shows this in practice.
Sub-performance of coagulation process, resulting in potential:
§ Reduced effectiveness of other water treatment processes (i.e. clarification, filtration, disinfection) – Health Risk (Regulatory)
POTENTIAL HAZARD § Elevated Aluminium residual in distribution system – Health Risk (Regulatory)
§ Dirty water (high turbidity and/or colour) in distribution system – Aesthetic Risk
Alum Dosing System Performance
KEY CONTROL MEASURE
pH (Coagulation) – during plant operation
What pH
How pH meter (online)
When Continuous online

MONITORING
Where Clarifier Inlet
Who WTP Operator
Records SCADA
TARGET 6.0 - 6.5
ALERT LIMIT < 5.8 or > 6.8 for 15

15minutes
minutes
CRITICAL LIMIT < 5.5 or > 7.0 for 45minutes

45 minutes
What When Who Records
Automatic plant shutdown Critical Automatic SCADA
Check SCADA trends (e.g. coagulant pH, raw water pH, raw water flow rate, raw water
Alert & Critical WTP Operator Plant event log
turbidity, filtered water turbidity, chemical pre-dosing)
Check accuracy of online pH trend and meter using portable pH test kit Alert & Critical WTP Operator Plant event log
Calibrate online pH meter (CW- PC-0808) Alert & Critical WTP Operator Plant event log
CORRECTIVE ACTION Check / adjust alum dose rate Alert & Critical WTP Operator Plant event log
CHECKLIST Check / adjust caustic pre-dose rate Alert & Critical WTP Operator Plant event log
(Undertake these actions as Visually inspect alum dosing system & clarifier Alert & Critical WTP Operator Plant event log
deemed necessary)
Check chemical quantity available Alert & Critical WTP Operator Plant event log
Check chemical quality (CW-PC-0806) Alert & Critical WTP Operator Plant event log SCADA: supervisory control and data acquisition
Initiate Water Quality Incident Notification (CW-PC-0805) Alert & Critical LL WQ Mgr Incident report (online telemetry system for monitoring and
Contact Manager / Supervisor for advice Critical WTP Operator Plant event log control); WTP: water treatment plant.
Manual plant shutdown Alert WTP Operator Plant event log
Create Issue Manager incident report Critical Manager WQP Issue Manager Source: Courtesy of Coliban Water, Australia.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CONTROL MEASURE VALIDATION AND
CASE STUDY 6.1 CONTD. SETTING LIMITS TO TRIGGER APPROPRIATE OPERATIONAL MONITORING
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS
When preparing Module 6, it is important to consider the difference
Experiences from Uruguay between control measure validation in Module 4 and operational
monitoring in Module 6.
The national drinking-water quality regulations in Uruguay specify operational monitoring
requirements for control measures that are significant for drinking-water safety. These include
Determines whether a control
critical limits; guidance on what should be monitored; and where, when, how and by whom the
CONTROL MEASURE measure is capable of effectively
monitoring should be conducted. The regulations also include the type of corrective actions that
VALIDATION controlling the hazardous event
should be considered in the event of a critical limit breach (see extract below). (MODULE 4) or hazard. It is part of the WSP
Water suppliers must adopt these requirements and integrate them into their system-specific development phase (section 4.2).
operational monitoring plans. Water suppliers may adopt more stringent critical limits to ensure
that control measure performance is optimized to minimize the risk of regulatory limits being
breached.
Ensures that the control measure

CORRECTIVE OPERATIONAL continues to function correctly
CRITICAL
WHAT WHERE HOW WHEN WHO ACTIONS TO MONITORING
LIMIT as part of routine and ongoing
CONSIDER (MODULE 6)
WSP operation.
Turbidity 0.7 NTU Filter Adjust
outlet operational
parameters
Filter 2500 mm Consider
Online Continuous Operational monitoring data can be used as evidence to inform
head the need for
monitoring online Operator control measure validation (see Module 4).
loss corrective
instrumentation monitoring
Filter maintenance
Filter 80 hours Optimize
run time disinfectant
residual
NTU: nephelometric turbidity unit.

Source: Adapted from URSEA (2018).

WHO provides specific guidance at different stages of the water supply to WHO SEARO (2017a). Operational monitoring plan development: a guide to
support selection of operational monitoring parameters, monitoring of control strengthening operational monitoring practices in small- to medium-sized
measures and review of operational monitoring data, including: water supplies. Provides basic practical guidance to support development and
implementation of operational monitoring plans.
D Groundwater sources – Protecting groundwater for health: managing the
quality of drinking-water sources (WHO, 2006), sections 16.7 and 16.8. WHO (2018b). Developing drinking-water quality regulations and standards:
Surface water sources – Protecting surface water for health: identifying, general guidance with a special focus on countries with limited resources.
D
assessing and managing drinking-water quality risks in surface-water Chapter 9 provides guidance on sampling frequency for monitoring, location of
catchments (WHO, 2016a), Chapter 3 and section 4.5. monitoring and review of results. Although aimed at compliance monitoring (see
Module 7), it is broadly applicable to operational monitoring in many contexts.
D Distribution network – Water safety in distribution systems (WHO, 2014),
Chapter 6. WHO (2019). A guide to equitable water safety planning: ensuring no one is left
User premises – Water safety in buildings (WHO, 2011a), section 4.9. behind. Section 3a details scenarios that highlight the importance of monitoring
D
for equitable benefits from control measures.
NHMRC & NRMMC (2011). Australian drinking water guidelines 6. Appendix A1.7
provides an easy-to-use decision tree that can help to identify control measures
whose monitoring is critical to ensure a safe water supply. The Aquatown water safety plan: worked example provides examples of the
development of operational monitoring plans for selected control measures.
Water Research Australia (2020). Good practice guide to the operation of Available at: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240067691.
drinking water supply systems for the management of microbial risk, second
edition. Details how water utilities can optimize and monitor their water
collection, treatment and distribution activities to manage microbial risk.
von Sperling M, Verbyla ME, Oliveira SMAC (2020). Assessment of treatment

plant performance and water quality data: a guide for students, researchers
and practitioners. Presents basic principles for evaluating water quality and
treatment plant performance; includes case studies and tools to illustrate key
concepts that are relevant to water safety planning.

MODULE Verifying the effectiveness of water safety planning
7 How do we know that the WSP is working and effective?
START HERE
Aim Key terms
WSP DEVELOPMENT
To verify that the WSP, as a whole, is Verification: The process of Programmes prepared here
working effectively obtaining evidence that the WSP, for all three verification
as a whole, is working effectively to elements
Key actions deliver safe drinking-water
Compliance monitoring: The
Develop and implement verification
process of determining compliance WSP REVIEW
programmes to confirm that: AND UPDATE
with drinking-water regulations and
D regulations and standards for standards Verification WSP OPERATION
drinking-water quality are being programmes (and
User satisfaction programme: A associated outputs) No specific action
met
programme to check whether users reviewed regularly and
D users are satisfied are satisfied with the drinking-water as required here, and
updated as needed
D the WSP is complete, adequately supplied
implemented and effective WSP audit: An independent and
systematic check to confirm that WSP VERIFICATION
Key outputs the WSP is complete, adequately
Verification programmes
implemented and effective implemented here to
Documented programmes that
Surveillance: The continuous and ensure that the WSP as a
routinely conduct:
whole is effective
D compliance monitoring vigilant public health assessment and
review of the safety of a drinking-
D user satisfaction monitoring
water supply
D WSP auditing Module 7 in action

7.1 WHY DO WE VERIFY THE 7.2 VERIFYING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF
EFFECTIVENESS OF WATER SAFETY WSPs – KEY ACTIONS
PLANNING?
7.2.1 Conduct compliance monitoring
Verification is central to successful and sustainable implementation of WSPs.
It is built on three equally important elements: compliance monitoring, user Develop a system-specific compliance monitoring programme to determine
satisfaction monitoring and WSP auditing (Fig. 7.1). whether the water supplied to users meets regulations and standards for
As a whole, verification provides evidence of the safety, acceptability and drinking-water quality.
adequacy of the water supply. All three elements together provide assurance Regulations and standards usually specify the parameters, frequency and
that risks are adequately controlled locations for monitoring, along with the analytical and reporting procedures.
and the water supply is being managed These should be the basis for developing the compliance monitoring
Verification is a key part
safely. Having defined processes programme.
of the continuous WSP
for verification is critical to ensuring
improvement cycle Compliance monitoring may be conducted by:
that water safety planning is working
effectively. D the surveillance agency;
D the water supplier (with the agreement of the surveillance agency); or
D both the surveillance agency and the water supplier, in a coordinated
WATER SAFETY PLAN VERIFICATION manner.
If compliance monitoring shows that the water is not consistently or regularly

COMPLIANCE USER WSP fit for its intended purposes or does not meet the regulations and standards,
MONITORING SATISFACTION AUDITING improvement plans and/or changes to existing control measures must be
MONITORING
Confirms that Provides evidence implemented.
drinking-water Provides information that the WSP is
quality regulations about how satisfied complete, up to Compliance monitoring should be routinely undertaken across locations that
and standards are consumers are with date, adequately
being achieved the water supply implemented and represent all different types of water collection points and all diverse user
effective groups. Ensure that the most vulnerable users and sections of the network are
included in the monitoring programme.
Fig. 7.1 The three elements of WSP verification

Box 7.1 describes additional actions that water suppliers may undertake in
addition to compliance monitoring.

ESTABLISHING A COMPLIANCE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND OPERATIONAL MONITORING
MONITORING PROGRAMME: CHECKLIST
Confusion often surrounds the various types of monitoring conducted as part of water safety planning. This can lead to
FOR SUCCESS
suboptimal selection of parameters, sample points or monitoring frequencies for operational or verification monitoring.
☑ Ensure that compliance monitoring fully
Water quality testing plays a distinct role in Module 6 and Module 7 - these important distinctions are illustrated in the
meets any regulatory requirements.
figure below.
☑ Identify appropriate personnel to
perform monitoring.
☑ Establish a system of communication MODULE 6 OPERATIONAL MODULE 7 VERIFICATION
between staff doing different types of MONITORING Aim: To confirm that the WSP as a
testing and monitoring. Aim: To ensure that control whole works effectively to deliver
measures are operating as intended safe drinking-water
☑ Identify appropriate analytical methods.
☑ Choose appropriate monitoring (sampling)
points.
☑ Ensure that the frequency of monitoring Measurements (e.g. water Observations Compliance monitoring WSP User
and testing is appropriate. quality testing) C Confirms compliance with audits satisfaction
drinking-water quality standards monitoring
☑ Ensure that the results are interpreted, C Confirms that the system’s
and results that are unexpected or control measures are C Conducted by the surveillance
outside the usual trend are investigated functioning as expected agency and/or water supplier
and acted upon. C Conducted by the water C Often, but not exclusively, end-
☑ Establish a system to ensure that results supplier of-pipe testing (e.g. user tap),
are reported to the appropriate regulatory C Monitoring points are and includes microbiological
authorities and other stakeholders (even generally system-wide and testing (e.g. E. coli)
in the absence of mandatory reporting include simple, rapid tests C Does not normally inform short-
requirements). or measurements (e.g. term control measure decisions
☑ Ensure that monitoring locations and turbidity, free chlorine (as, by the time the result is
frequencies consider all diverse user residual, pH, flow) available, the water has
groups. C Informs operational generally been delivered to
decisions (e.g. free chlorine consumers)
When designing compliance monitoring residual testing to optimize C Frequency of compliance
programmes, many of the same principles that the chlorine dose) monitoring (e.g. weekly,
are used in setting regulations and standards C Generally conducted monthly) is typically lower than
regularly (e.g. continuous, operational monitoring as this
for drinking-water quality are relevant. For
hourly, daily) to inform reflects their different purposes
more information, see WHO (2018b).
optimized operations

7.2.2 Conduct user satisfaction monitoring Design the user satisfaction survey to collect demographic data on all users.
Disaggregate survey responses by gender and other social stratifiers to the
Develop a user satisfaction monitoring programme to check that users are fullest extent possible, and analyse the data to identify any differences in user
satisfied with, and are using, the water supply.12 This should include: satisfaction between groups.
D a system for managing day-to-day user notifications or complaints; and Establish user communication and response procedures that allow easy
analysis (including identification of trends) of user satisfaction monitoring
D a routine programme for actively seeking user feedback (e.g. user
data. Analyse the outputs to inform proactive management (e.g. developing
satisfaction survey).
programmes for preventive network flushing and mains cleaning in areas that
Monitor and document user complaints and feedback, and follow up as have a history of dirty water complaints). Use the information to track progress
required. Ensure that there is equitable investigation of all complaints and over time, and report on this regularly to senior management and the public
notifications. Always investigate patterns or clusters of complaints. This type of (see Case study 7.1).
verification can be very powerful in early detection of deviations from normal
service or quality, particularly for acceptability issues that may be linked to
Although user feedback is subjective, it can provide an early indication of
water quality problems in the distribution system. water quality problems. This information can enable more rapid investigation
and remedial action by the water supplier, and may also help to contain and
Consider the following when developing a user satisfaction survey: localize issues before they affect larger sections of the network. Discoloured
water, increased turbidity and odours can provide evidence of major faults in
D method of user satisfaction analysis (e.g. online surveys, posting hard- the network, such as entry of contamination through backflows, from cross-
copy questionnaires, random telephone interviews); connections, water mains breaks or abnormal flow events.
D frequency of data collection;

D sample size;
D sample distribution (e.g. geographic spread, demographic spread);
D type of analysis;
D reporting channels (both internal and external), and frequency and extent
of reporting; and
D how customer complaints are obtained, recorded, acted upon and
reported.
12 These programmes typically include water quality, water quantity or other service delivery aspects of the water supply.

7.2.3 Conduct WSP auditing
EXTERNAL INTERNAL
Undertake WSP auditing to independently and systematically confirm that the
External formal Internal formal
WSP is complete, adequately implemented and effective.
C Confirm compliance with C Undertake organizational
FORMAL
WSP auditing can directly support: regulatory requirements quality assurance
C Prepare for external audit
D confirmation that WSPs are compliant with any regulatory requirements;
D sustainability of the WSP, by providing accountability and incentive to
comply with WSP requirements over time;
WSP implementation for improved safe drinking-water management; and
External informal Internal informal
D
C Provide advice and support C Provide advice and support
INFORMAL
D continuous improvement of the WSP. (e.g. where internal audit C Prepare for external audit
skills are lacking)
WSP audits can take a number of forms. The aims of the different audit C Provide learning and
C Provide learning and encouragement
combinations are summarized in Fig. 7.2. encouragement
Where possible, ensure that WSP auditing is independent – that is, carried out
by someone who is not directly involved in development and implementation of
the WSP. This will help to avoid potential conflicts of interest.
Fig. 7.2 Main aims of different types of WSP audit
The requirement for WSP auditing (including the frequency of auditing) may
form part of drinking-water quality regulations. In addition to mandatory
regulatory audits, develop an internal audit programme to ensure that the WSP
is up to date and continuously implemented in practice. This can also help
the water supplier to prepare for external regulatory audits. The frequency of The results from all WSP verification activities should be communicated in
internal audits will depend on the stage of maturity of the WSP and the level of a way that makes them accessible to all users of the system. This means
taking into account levels of literacy; vision impairment; and access to
confidence required by the water supplier (see section 7.4). Use feedback from
television, radio, mobile phones and the internet.
audits to critically assess the effectiveness of the WSP, and strengthen water
safety planning practices.
Case study 7.2 describes a progressive approach to developing an internal

WSP audit programme.

7.3 RECORDING THE OUTPUTS FROM BOX 7.1
MONITORING TO ENSURE
THAT INTERNAL TARGETS ARE
MODULE 7 ACHIEVED
A suggested format for a basic compliance monitoring programme is shown in Toolbox – In addition to compliance monitoring, as outlined in section
Module 7. 7.2.1, water suppliers may undertake further monitoring to
confirm that other water supply targets are being achieved,
For user satisfaction monitoring, the WSP’s documentation should include the frequency of such as:
monitoring, type of information to be collected, method of collection, reporting mechanisms
and responsible parties.
C internal water quality targets (which may be more
stringent than those in regulations and standards);
Templates and reporting processes for WSP auditing can be found in WHO & IWA (2015). C targets for treated water requirements in customer
contracts; and
7.4 CHALLENGES AND PRACTICAL C targets relating to the WSP objectives and related key
performance indicators (see Part II (Fig. II.2)).
SOLUTIONS These monitoring data can give the water supplier:
Determining an appropriate schedule for internal C evidence that a group of control measures results in an
internally agreed water quality (e.g. at the exit of the
audit programmes treatment plant or within the distribution system);
C confidence that users receive water that meets water
Audits can be time-consuming in terms of preparation, execution and follow-up, so
quality or other targets;
determining an appropriate frequency for internal auditing is important. If drinking-water
quality regulations include a requirement for WSP auditing at a certain frequency (e.g. once C assurance that any WSP objectives and associated targets
every 1–2 years), internal audits can be conducted more frequently than this (e.g. once every are on the way to being achieved; and
6–12 months). This can help to ensure that the WSP is up to date and is being continuously C confidence that any independent testing for compliance
implemented, and support preparedness for regulatory audits by identifying any gaps or monitoring is likely to be compliant.
issues that need to be addressed in advance.
Even if WSP audits are not mandated in regulations, water suppliers should conduct their own
internal audit programmes, as part of ongoing WSP verification and continuous improvement.
In such cases, auditing may also be conducted by other water suppliers (i.e. an external
informal audit), which may support peer-to-peer learning for progressive improvement.

LINKING USER NOTIFICATION PROGRESSIVELY IMPROVING A WSP AUDIT
CASE STUDY 7.1 SYSTEMS WITH USER SATISFACTION CASE STUDY 7.2 PROGRAMME, JORDAN
MONITORING, NEW ZEALAND
The water supplier in Jordan had undertaken limited WSP auditing in the past, as
User satisfaction information can be extremely valuable at many stages of this had not been mandated by national drinking-water quality regulations. However,
development and implementation of a WSP. For a water supplier in New the water supplier recognized the importance of auditing for assessing the practical
Zealand, a dedicated customer service centre is central for communication implementation of the WSP by themselves and relevant stakeholders.
with customers. This facility assists customers with enquiries, complaints and
reports of defective services (e.g. broken or leaking water mains, discoloured To address this verification gap, basic internal informal auditing was undertaken
drinking-water). using “water supply field inspections”. The inspections were undertaken by the water
supplier each year to identify sanitary hazards throughout the water supply and
Once received, the customer notification is entered on a database and then improve risk management. This activity was supplemented by targeted unscheduled
passed on to the water quality department for follow-up. Six-weekly reports on audit activities to support specific water quality programmes.
trends and issues are generated from the database and forwarded to senior
management for appraisal. These interim activities were implemented in parallel with the development of a
customized auditing programme for the water supplier. This includes initiation of an
In addition to the services provided by the customer service centre, a selection internal WSP audit team, development of a tailored WSP audit form and associated
of customers are sent a satisfaction questionnaire on levels of service in training as part of a 5-year water safety planning programme.
relation to water supply. This is a statistically designed survey that is adapted to
suit the changing population characteristics of each area to ensure that results
are valid. The results of the survey are analysed and collated by a professional
company, independent of the water supplier, and reported in an annual report
against key performance targets. The annual report is available at the service
centre and via various media forums.
These user satisfaction channels are linked to efficiently address issues

that arise on a day-to-day basis and gather data on the wider level of user
satisfaction. In this way, user satisfaction is maintained at high levels at all
times across the whole network

WHO provides specific guidance at different stages of the water supply to support each element of
WSP verification, including:
water sources (WHO, 2006), section 16.9.
D User premises – Water safety in buildings (WHO, 2011a), section 4.12.
WHO & IWA (2015). A practical guide to auditing water safety plans. Provides detailed information
on preparing and undertaking WSP audits, including practical tools and examples from low-, middle-
and high-income countries. It also provides several examples of audit criteria that can be modified as
necessary to reflect audit priorities. The examples in the guide provide a useful starting point for the
development of customized auditing tools. An accompanying training package and training videos are
also provided.
WHO (2007). Chemical safety of drinking-water: assessing priorities for risk management. Chapter 8
includes a suggested monitoring approach for chemicals used in water treatment and distribution that
may inform the development of compliance monitoring programmes.
WHO (2018b). Developing drinking-water quality regulations and standards: general guidance with a
special focus on countries with limited resources. Chapter 9 provides simplified guidance that may be
adapted for compliance monitoring programmes led by water suppliers, including what parameters to
select, and issues that affect the frequency of sampling and location (e.g. parameter stability, likelihood
of occurrence).
The Aquatown water safety plan: worked example provides basic approaches to WSP verification for early
stage WSP practitioners. Available at: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240067691.

MODULE Strengthening management procedures
8 What management procedures should be used for normal and abnormal conditions?
START HERE
Aim WSP DEVELOPMENT
To provide documented procedures to follow during normal or incident Management procedures
conditions, or emergency situations prepared/strengthened
here for normal or incident
Key actions conditions, or emergency
situations
Develop and implement:
C standard operating procedures (SOPs)
C emergency response plans (ERPs) WSP REVIEW WSP OPERATION
AND UPDATE
Key outputs Management procedures
Management
procedures applied
reviewed regularly and
Documented management procedures for normal or incident conditions, and consistently and
as required here, and
effectively here
emergency situations, which are consistently applied as required updated as needed
Key terms
Standard operating procedure: A set of step-by-step instructions to guide WSP VERIFICATION
staff when carrying out routine tasks under either normal or incident conditions
Incident: An abnormal event that requires corrective action. An incident See Module 7
represents some degree of loss in system control that could compromise the
drinking-water supply, or have the potential to escalate to an emergency
Emergency: A serious situation or occurrence for which there is no SOP in
place. Emergencies usually happen unexpectedly, requiring immediate and
extensive action.
Emergency response plan: Steps to guide responses to an emergency Module 8 in action

8.1 WHY DO WE NEED MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES?
All drinking-water supplies require instructions about how they are to be
operated. These ensure that all staff clearly understand their responsibilities, Management procedures
and know when to act and what to do. Management procedures ensure that all
staff are adequately supported for effective operation of the water supply under
all conditions.
Standard operating Emergency
Module 8 supports the development of procedures to be followed during normal
procedures (SOPs) response plans
operations or incident conditions (i.e. SOPs), and in emergency situations (i.e.
(ERPs)
ERPs), as shown in Fig. 8.1.
Developed to cover
SOPs are important because they help to: emergencies for which
Steps to follow Steps to follow there are no specific SOPs
during normal during incident e.g. response to a
D build operator confidence about what to do and when to do it; conditions
operations major microbiological
D ensure that important tasks are performed consistently and correctly; e.g. how to preform e.g. how to respond to contamination event
a filter backwash a high filtered water
D prevent valuable knowledge and experience from being lost; turbidity alarm
D serve as training tools for staff;
D provide standard ways of taking corrective action in the event of an
Fig. 8.1 Overview of management procedures
incident (e.g. results that are unexpected or outside the usual trend); and
D achieve efficiency and uniformity of performance.
Most corrective actions for incidents in the operation of WSPs are quite routine
and can be handled by automated systems and/or trained system operators,
by using the operational monitoring plan and following SOPs. However, if the
normal corrective action does not bring the system back under control, or if
some unforeseen event occurs, ERPs are required to ensure that the water
supplier has clear guidance on how to respond in a structured and effective way.

8.2 STRENGTHENING MANAGEMENT TABLE 8.1 • EXAMPLES OF SOP TOPICS
CATEGORY EXAMPLESa
PROCEDURES – KEY ACTIONS
General tasks C Site security inspection
C Water sample collection
8.2.1 Develop and implement SOPs C Calibrating equipment and online monitoring systems
C Dealing with user notifications and complaints
Systematically assess and document which activities or processes already have
C Record keeping and reporting
SOPs and where gaps may exist. To predict the types of deviations that can Source C Routine monitoring of the integrity of a source water storage dam
lead to an incident, review existing SOPs and routine operational tasks, and C Routine sediment removal from a source water intake channel
conduct a critical assessment of risks and vulnerabilities. C Selective source water abstraction protocols for seasonal surface-
water harvesting
Where needed, develop new SOPs, or review and strengthen existing SOPs, C Responding to a critical limit alarm for source water turbidity
for each of the identified situations, describing how to perform routine tasks
effectively to reduce risks. The SOPs should be sufficiently detailed that Water C Chemical dosing procedures (e.g. coagulation/flocculation, pH
treatment correction)
someone with basic training and understanding can successfully undertake the plant C Responding to a critical limit alarm for low chlorine residual at the
procedure when unsupervised. Consider including important safety information, water treatment plant outlet
roles and responsibilities, and the experience or training required to perform C Manual filter backwashing
the activity. C Jar testing
C Flow meter calibration
For incidents that may occur (e.g. when the system is operating outside the
C Operation and maintenance of water treatment plant bypass valve
critical limits, as documented in the operational monitoring plan – see Module
6), develop SOPs detailing the corrective actions that staff should take to Distribution C Operating intermittent supplies
effectively and rapidly respond to such circumstances. and storage C Responding to a critical limit alarm for low chlorine residual in the
distribution network
Table 8.1 gives some examples of normal and incident conditions that SOPs C Inspection and maintenance of storage tanks
typically cover. C Responding to loss of pressure in the distribution network
C Sanitary repair of water main breaks
C Responding to a dirty-water incident following mains repair or
Prepare SOPs in consultation with the staff who will be performing, or are familiar replacement
with, the activity. Achieving consensus from operational staff on the procedure C Cleaning, disinfecting and filling water carting tanks
can help to ensure that the SOPs are followed in practice. Consider including C Maintenance inspection of a tap stand
diagrams, tables and photographs in the SOPs to increase clarity.
a These examples are broad headings only, and the list is not exhaustive. Some of the examples
may be applicable to several categories.

Implementing SOPs 8.2.2 Develop and implement ERPs
Once SOPs have been developed, ensure that personnel are appropriately
Develop ERPs to cover situations
trained to implement them and the procedures are fully understood. Re-train
or occurrences for which there Emergencies will occur in even the
routinely as required, and always after an existing SOP has been updated.
is no specific SOP. Define best managed systems – water safety
To facilitate use of SOPs, ensure that copies are readily accessible for reference ERPs for the various types of planning can aid preparedness for
in the work areas of individuals performing the activity. emergencies that may occur in disasters and extreme events, including
the water supply (see examples those that are unforeseen
Review and enforce the use of SOPs by management – preferably the direct in Box 8.1). At a minimum, include
supervisor of the staff undertaking the activity. in the ERP:
Regularly review, test and revise SOPs – for example, following a significant D response actions, including increased water quality monitoring and visual
incident (as detailed in Module 10). Ensure effective outcomes by involving the inspection requirements;
relevant operational staff in such reviews.
D responsibilities and authorities internal and external to the organization;
Update and approve SOPs when procedures change. Following any D plans for emergency water supplies (e.g. alternative water sources,
reassessment of risks, check whether the associated SOPs are still adequate. mobile water treatment units, water carting, boil water notices);
Establish robust document control and distribution procedures to ensure that D communication protocols and strategies, including the contact details of
the latest version of SOPs is issued to relevant internal and external personnel. key personnel, and notification procedures (internal, health/regulatory
body, media and general public, including all diverse user groups); and
D mechanisms for increased public health surveillance.
When developing ERPs, consult with and involve concerned stakeholders –

Even the best-written SOPs will fail if they are not followed. Make it easy for staff
to use them by locating them close to the task being completed (e.g. laminating for example, representatives from local and national authorities responsible
the jar testing SOP beside the jar testing equipment in the water treatment plant). for emergency management, roads and transport, catchment management
Consider also having SOPs available electronically so that operators can access (including fire control) and emergency services (e.g. fire brigade, police,
them on a mobile device in the field (e.g. mobile phone, tablet).
paramedics).

EXAMPLES OF EMERGENCY SITUATIONS Implementing ERPs
BOX 8.1
FOR WHICH ERPs MAY BE DEVELOPED a
Once ERPs have been developed, assess their effectiveness, and the readiness
C Widespread detection of E. coli in the distribution network of organizations and personnel to respond to emergencies, by conducting routine
training and refresher training. Make arrangements for emergency practice drills at
C Chemical spill in source water catchment
appropriate intervals (e.g. annually), involving all key staff and external stakeholders.
C Catastrophic failure of water storage (e.g. dam or tank wall collapse)
C Severe flooding Regularly review and update the ERPs. Establish robust document control and
distribution procedures (as described for SOPs in section 8.2.1).
C Landslide or mud slide
C Prolonged drought Document all emergencies and “near miss” events, and review their implications
for water safety planning. Conduct a critical review of the ERPs after an emergency
C Forest fire in the catchment area
situation has occurred, and update the WSP based on lessons learned (see Module 10).
C Catastrophic failure of water treatment plant (e.g. following earthquake)
C Extended power outage See Case study 8.1 for details on the effective emergency management of a chemical
spill in a drinking-water catchment. Box 8.2 provides important equity considerations
C Widespread staff absenteeism (e.g. due to disease outbreak or shelter-
for emergency response planning.
in-place orders)
C Extended loss of supply chains (e.g. road closures)
C Chemical overdose at the water treatment plant Conduct regular emergency response exercises and drills to ensure that:
C Chlorine gas leak C key personnel understand their roles and responsibilities during the emergency
response;
C Acts of vandalism, sabotage, terrorism or cyberattack b
C personnel are experienced with decision-making under the type of pressure that is
typical of emergency situations;
C all relevant details are up to date – for example, treated water storage capacity,
network water residence times, treatment chemical storage capacity, water carting
capacity, fuel storage capacity, number of fixed/mobile power generators, list of
bottled water suppliers, contact details for key personnel; and
C the ERP can be implemented effectively when a real-world emergency occurs.
a These examples are broad headings only, and the list is not exhaustive. Some Make these exercises as close to realistic scenarios as possible. Involve relevant
of the examples may be applicable to several types of emergencies. internal and external stakeholders who can take part in the exercise (or observe) and
b May be covered under separate management systems, such as the water provide feedback to strengthen the response in the future.
supplier’s business continuity planning; in such cases, the WSP should clearly
highlight or cross-reference any linkages to the relevant management systems
external to the WSP.

8.3 RECORDING THE OUTPUTS FROM WSP teams should engage as needed with the relevant emergency
management stakeholders, including those responsible for national and
MODULE 8 subnational emergency preparedness and disaster risk reduction. Relevant
types of disasters and their potential consequences can be integrated into a
Refer to Toolbox – Module 8 for considerations and suggested templates for WSP. In this way, the WSP can contribute to broader emergency management
documenting SOPs and ERPs. and disaster risk reduction planning. This means that the water supply can be
better prepared to react to, and recover from, an emergency, which can help
to ensure the integrity and safe operation of the water supply throughout the
8.4 CHALLENGES AND PRACTICAL event (WHO, 2017a).
SOLUTIONS During an emergency, it may be necessary to modify the treatment of existing
water sources or temporarily use an alternative water source. For example,
Keeping SOPs up to date increased disinfection at the source or additional disinfection (e.g. re-
chlorination) during distribution, or boil water notices, may be required. If water
Larger water supplies can have many routine activities and potential incidents outages are prolonged or “do not consume” advisories are issued, alternative
that require management procedures. Aim to systematically review SOPs on sources of water could include bottled water and carted water. Procedures for
a routine basis (e.g. every 1–2 years), and following any significant system such an emergency situation should be planned and documented.
changes, to ensure that the procedures remain current and appropriate. Good
document control is important, to ensure that out-of-date SOPs are not being
The supplementary tool Module 8: emergency preparedness checklist provides
used. If an SOP activity is no longer undertaken, the SOP should be taken out of key considerations for helping water suppliers to ensure that they are prepared
circulation and archived. for an effective response to seen and unforeseen events. Available at: https://
wsportal.org/resource/wsp-manual-supplementary-tool-module-8-general-
checklist-for-emergency-preparedness/.
Managing the unforeseen
A central challenge for WSP teams is to proactively prepare for unforeseen
events. Effective emergency response planning can support water suppliers
to proactively prepare for unforeseen emergencies and disasters (see Case
studies 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3).

BOX 8.2 MANAGING WATER SAFETY PLANNING FOR THE FULL DIVERSITY OF USERS
Unless diversity among users is considered, critical safety messages arising from emergency responses may fail to reach all users,
including vulnerable groups. When developing ERPs, consider the following.
C How will critical messages be delivered to users during an emergency situation?

C Are there any user groups who may be excluded from this communication method, and how could they be reached?
C Which users are the most vulnerable to drinking-water supply emergencies, and what is the best way to communicate with
them?
C Can the proposed remedial actions (e.g. boiling, chlorine tablets) be implemented by all user groups?
C If alternative water supplies will be provided, will they be accessible to all user groups?
Source: WHO (2019).
CASE STUDY 8.1 MANAGING THE UNFORESEEN – CHEMICAL SPILL INCIDENT IN THE
CATCHMENT, SRI LANKA
About 500 metres upstream of the source water for a drinking-water supply in Sri Lanka, a truck carrying hazardous materials rolled
over, spilling its contents. The area was in a high-rainfall location, and there was a high risk of hazardous chemicals reaching the
drinking-water intake and contaminating the water supply.
The water supplier responded quickly, based on their general emergency preparedness planning. The response included
communication with affected users (including use of public radio and home visits), extensive testing of the water, supply of
alternative safe drinking-water to affected families, containment of hazardous material on-site, removal of affected soil, and
remedial works and flushing at the intake. As a result, the risk was managed, and the water supply was unaffected.
The water supplier used the event as a learning experience to strengthen future emergency responses.

CASE STUDY 8.2 EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLANNING FOR STRENGTHENED RESILIENCE TO NATURAL DISASTERS, NEPAL
A water supply project in Nepal identified that earthquakes and associated prolonged Ongoing monitoring of water quality and quantity, and maintenance of these hand pumps
power outages represented a significant risk to the continuity of the drinking-water supply. ensures the safety of this emergency supply.
To mitigate this risk, the authorities installed seven hand pumps to cover their supply This basic measure can help to provide safe drinking-water to communities during natural
areas. Groundwater can be manually extracted through these hand pumps when any of disasters. It also builds broader resilience for future emergencies, including those relating
the network’s borehold pumps experience prolonged power outages that interrupt supply. to climate variability and change.
MANAGING SAFE DRINKING-WATER SUPPLY DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC THROUGH EMERGENCY RESPONSE
CASE STUDY 8.3 PLANNING, AUSTRALIA
A well-established and tested emergency response framework can build resilience to up a satellite laboratory to minimize contact between the water samplers. In the event
unforeseen and unpredictable large-scale emergencies. This was demonstrated during of significant positive COVID-19 cases among the laboratory staff, less accurate basic
the COVID-19 pandemic, when an established and integrated emergency management microbiological (presence/absence) testing would be used to ensure that compliance
structure was key to managing safe and continuous drinking-water supply. monitoring and testing in response to incidents could continue.
An Incident Management Team was established by the water supplier at the beginning
C A process was put in place for an uninterrupted supply chain for construction
of the pandemic. The team linked to existing business continuity plans for all business materials for emergency repairs, laboratory testing materials and reagents, and water
functions, including water supply, water quality, materials supply, information technology treatment chemical supplies.
security, laboratory services, customer service and human resources. C Additional short-term storage facilities were set up for equipment and stocks of
materials.
The following examples of activities show the effectiveness of emergency preparedness for
such events.
C Clear communication channels with staff were established to keep personnel well
informed of ongoing challenges and ensure staff well-being.
C Risk assessment was used to identify and prioritize water quality testing parameters C Communication with customers was maintained, including response to customer
if a significant number of laboratory staff responsible for water quality testing were complaints, faults and other inquiries. As well, programmes for customers and
absent because of illness. A priority list was established to enable continued sampling businesses experiencing hardship were escalated.
and testing of the key indicators (e.g. microbiological indicators). This including setting

WHO provides specific guidance at different stages of the water supply to support the development
and implementation of management procedures, including:
water sources (WHO, 2006), section 20.7.
D User premises – Water safety in buildings (WHO, 2011a), sections 4.10 and 4.11.
USEPA (2007). Guidance for preparing standard operating procedures. Provides general information
on the effective preparation and use of SOPs.
USEPA (2022). Preparing for emergencies. Provides general information on emergency response
planning, including links to tools and guidance to support drinking-water suppliers’ emergency
preparedness and response.
WHO (2019). A guide to equitable water safety planning: ensuring no one is left behind. Section 4a
details case studies on inclusive and effective communication planning.
WHO SEARO (2017b). Principles and practices of drinking-water chlorination: a guide to strengthening
chlorination practices in small- to medium-sized water supplies. Includes generic SOPs for drinking-
water chlorination in small to medium-sized water systems.

MODULE Strengthening WSP supporting programmes
9 What is the best way to support the implementation of water safety planning?
START HERE
Aim
To support the effective implementation of water safety planning WSP DEVELOPMENT
Supporting programmes
Key actions prepared/strengthened here
D Develop programmes that support WSP implementation

D Implement these programmes
WSP REVIEW WSP OPERATION
AND UPDATE
Key outputs Supporting
Supporting
programmes
Established programmes that are applied to support effective WSP programmes reviewed
implemented here
regularly and as
implementation to support building
required here, and
capacity and skills
updated as needed
Key terms
Supporting programmes: Activities that improve management of drinking-
water supplies that are consistent with the implementation of water safety WSP VERIFICATION
planning. Supporting programmes include general organizational support as See Module 7
well as specific programmes targeted to particular risks.
Module 9 in action

9.1 WHY DO WE NEED SUPPORTING 9.2 STRENGTHENING WSP
PROGRAMMES? SUPPORTING PROGRAMMES –
Supporting programmes help sustain water safety planning by broadly
KEY ACTIONS
supporting the delivery of safe drinking-water. They provide an enabling and
supportive environment for WSP implementation.
9.2.1 Develop programmes that support WSP
Supporting programmes can address gaps in knowledge and skills, improve implementation
communication and raise awareness. They help to embed the water
safety planning approach within an organization towards effective WSP Undertake an assessment of existing supporting
implementation. programmes from a water safety planning Poorly trained operators
perspective, and determine the need for additional can have a significant
Supporting programmes can target general organizational support, supporting programmes. Based on the outcomes, impact on the delivery
assessment of specific risks, and capacity-building for the water supplier and develop new supporting programmes or of safe drinking-water
external stakeholders (see Fig. 9.1). For example, it is essential to ensure that strengthen existing ones to address these gaps.
stakeholders – e.g. those within the catchment, maintenance contractors,
plumbers, and operators and owners of facilities connected to drinking-water
suppliers – have the capacity to act in a manner that is consistent with the
WSP approach.
Fig. 9.1 Types of supporting programmes

Training programmes for operators TABLE 9.1 • EXAMPLES OF SUPPORTING PROGRAMMES
and others ACTIVITY PURPOSE EXAMPLE
Competent operators are essential to meet WSP Calibration of To ensure that critical limit monitoring is Development of calibration schedules and associated
online monitoring reliable and accurate training
requirements. Formal operator training programmes instrumentation
with standardized competency assessments (e.g. by
Catchment To minimize community activities in the Development of behaviour change programmes
accredited organizations) may be available. If not, management catchment that may detrimentally affect Partnership building with farming communities (e.g.
develop in-house operator training and education source water quality development of memorandums of understanding)
programmes tailored to the organization and its
Development of To ensure that the source water is well Research on appropriate buffer distances for
systems. Start by assessing operator training needs, protocols for source protected by fences or another type of potentially contaminating activities
and develop the training objectives and curriculum water protection permanent boundary
based on the desired outcomes. Ensure that refresher Development of a risk To provide information to the public at Development of communication protocols and
training is conducted at an appropriate frequency. See communication strategy times of elevated risk training
Case study 9.1 for an example of a skills-based training Development of To ensure that customers are responded Training of call centre staff for water safety
programme for a national water utility. customer complaint/ to if water safety issues arise or complaints
notification protocols questions are raised
Laboratory analysis To ensure a high quality of testing Laboratory strengthening and quality assurance
procedures programmes
User outreach, education and
Laboratory accreditation
behaviour change programmes
Preventive To ensure that malfunctions in important Asset management programmes
If user practices and behaviour are identified as a maintenance processes are minimized and assets are Proactive asset maintenance programmes
high-risk factor, develop programmes to target these in good working order
risks. This is important because the behaviour of Training on water To ensure that the practices of WSP awareness training for existing staff
individuals plays a key role in keeping the water safe safety planning organizational and contractor personnel WSP induction training for new staff
are consistent with WSP principles
after the point of delivery or collection – a water Operator certification scheme
supplier cannot rely solely on technology and the Development of a To ensure safe, high-quality chemical Chemical supply specifications for water treatment
services they provide to ensure safe drinking-water. chemical quality supplies chemicals
assurance programme
Table 9.1 provides examples of a broad range of
Management of water To proactively manage water supply Demand management activities (e.g. leak detection
supporting programmes. Case studies 9.2 and 9.3 supply demand demand to conserve water resources and management, water efficiency programmes,
highlight examples of supporting programmes that pricing mechanisms)
strengthen management of monitoring data for Management of WSP To ensure systematic collection, Creation, development and maintenance of a WSP
improved risk management. documentation and data recording, tracing, updating and use of cloud with controlled access by the WSP team and
WSP documents surveillance authorities

9.2.2 Implement supporting programmes 9.3 RECORDING THE OUTPUTS FROM
Implement supporting programmes as required. Consider whether the MODULE 9
supporting programme is a one-off exercise (e.g. research study into a specific
hazard) or requires routine delivery (e.g. routine refresher training for operators Document supporting programmes in the WSP, and briefly describe how they
on critical management procedures, behaviour change programmes). will support water safety planning.
Where relevant, evaluate the effectiveness of the learning outcomes, assess Also document in the WSP a summary of the key outcomes from any supporting
the effectiveness of the intervention and modify the intervention as required. programmes that have been undertaken. For example, summarize the
outcomes from a research study within Module 2 if they are relevant to hazard
Consider how the outcomes of the supporting programmes affect the WSP, and identification and risk assessment.
review and revise the WSP if required (see Module 10). For example, a fluoride
tracer study within a storage basin might identify significant flow short-circuiting Supporting programme outcomes can be included as an annex to the WSP,
in the basin, which is a new risk that needs to be addressed in the relevant or simply referred to in the WSP with a link to the relevant report in the water
modules. supplier’s document management system.
Supporting programmes that were intended to be a one-off exercise may need to

be revisited over time. For example, assessment of the risk posed by emerging
pathogens in a distribution network may need to be revisited as new climate
information and more accurate modelling data become available on future climate
change projections relating to temperature.

9.4 CHALLENGES AND PRACTICAL Ensuring ongoing successful
SOLUTIONS management of water safety planning
Sustainable and effective management of water safety planning relies
Supporting the particular needs of all user groups on good people management. Consider the following characteristics
and systems that can actively support continuous improvement so
Specific user groups, particularly the vulnerable, often have specific needs and that water safety planning is effective in the long term.
communication challenges. If these are not considered by the water supplier,
supporting programmes may be less effective. D Choose meaningful parameters to report on.
D Have a well-defined and efficient system for reporting failures.
Development of supporting programmes should take into account the specific
requirements and interests of different stakeholder groups. For example, the content D Include higher-level management in reporting so they are
of educational materials on safe household water practices must be accessible to either involved in or aware of events.
all relevant stakeholders to ensure effectiveness and equitable benefit. The chosen D Follow a “no blame” model, where individuals are not blamed
methods of communication (e.g. radio, television, internet) must also be accessible by for failure, but solutions are collectively sought.
all users. Consider whether low literacy levels or limited vision warrant adaptation of Have a widely accessible mechanism for presenting
D
the delivery method to suit these needs. suggestions for improvement, risk analysis and interpretation,
and for challenging existing practices.
Strengthening climate-resilient water supply D Ensure that all procedures are agreed to at a senior level.
through supporting programmes
Managing risks to drinking-water supplies into the future can be daunting for water
suppliers, given the variety of climate information and tools that are available, and the
inherent uncertainty surrounding future projections.
Development of targeted supporting programmes can enable WSP teams to access

relevant tools that are appropriate to their capacity and to interpret this information to
strengthen the resilience of the water supply to climate impacts.
Box 9.1 provides some examples of climate-focused supporting programmes. Case

study 9.4 describes the use of local knowledge and experiences to better understand
local-level climate impact on a water supply in Nepal.

BOX 9.1 EXAMPLES OF SUPPORTING PROGRAMMES TO STRENGTHEN THE RESILIENCE OF SYSTEMS TO THE IMPACTS
OF CLIMATE VARIABILITY AND CHANGE
Investigations and research studies:

C Aquifer recharge rate modelling under different drought scenarios
C Cost–benefit comparison of different management technologies for cyanobacterial blooms
C Assessment of the potential for aquifer storage and recovery to increase storage capacity for source water
C Flow tracer study on reservoir mixing during different precipitation scenarios
C Modelling of the impact of increasing water temperature on chlorine stability throughout the distribution network
Strengthening operations and management:

C Assessment of flood vulnerability for critical assets (e.g. valve boxes, ageing or exposed pipework)
C Leak detection and reduction in transmission lines
C Incentive programmes for household leak repair
C Strengthening of capacity to analyse emerging contaminants of concern
C Provision of online telemetry for remote monitoring and control of vulnerable water treatment plant sites and pumping stations
C Establishment of multiple suppliers or distributors for critical spare parts, treatment chemicals, etc.
Stakeholder communication and capacity-building:

C Strengthening of collaborations between institutions, and planning and communication for disaster management
C Building of partnerships with other source water users (e.g. agriculture, industry, energy) and relevant ministries (e.g. water resources, sanitation, reuse) for improved
coordination of water resources management
C User education on water conservation
C User education on safe household practices during emergency events

CASE STUDY 9.1 A SYSTEMATIC AND TARGETED CASE STUDY 9.2 IMPROVED MANAGEMENT OF OPERATIONAL
APPROACH TO TRAINING, MONITORING DATA THROUGH DEVELOPMENT OF A
SINGAPORE MOBILE APP, BANGLADESH
Singapore’s national agency for managing water resources To support effective data collection and follow-up on the outcomes of operational monitoring, a
established a training academy to build capacity through supporting programme was developed in Bangladesh to improve data flow, analysis and decision-
competency-based training and development for concerned making using a mobile app.
stakeholders.
Traditionally, operators relied on paper-based logbooks in the field. Under the new programme, a
The academy programme helps ensure that every staff member digital data management system has been developed for staff so that they can record operational
is given consistent and adequate training to be competent at monitoring data in the field using the app, which is connected to a central database. The app
work. Staff are trained systematically from the time they enter the can support a variety of field workers, with different operational monitoring roles, including
organization. This involves training at induction, structured on-the- pump operators, water superintendents, sanitary inspectors, treatment plant operators, pipeline
job training in the first 6 months, and competency-based courses mechanics and bill distributors.
tied to their roles over a 2-year period. Competency frameworks
have been developed for all staff, which map out the competencies, The responsible authority can centrally check the status and performance of different components
skills and knowledge for each position. In this systematic manner, of the system on the database, and follow up on corrective actions as needed. This also aids easy
the training needs of each employee are identified, and a structured extraction and analysis of historical data to conduct rapid analysis, avoiding time-consuming manual
training curriculum is developed. data entry from paper-based logbooks.
Staff who are managing water treatment, water supply and water The digitization of operational monitoring data was also used to identify vulnerabilities in the
quality are trained on the concept of water safety planning in system. Data obtained and analysed through the app identified lower flow rates in two source water
various technical modules, including water quality monitoring, tubewells, which indicated aquifer depletion during the dry season. This information can be used in
auditing and water quality management. planning to address deficits in source water capacity in the future.

CASE STUDY 9.3 MANAGEMENT TOOL FOR EARLY WARNING OF WATER
QUALITY CHANGES IN WATER SOURCES, URUGUAY
In Uruguay, 90% of the potable water comes from surface sources. The responsible authority has more than 60
water treatment plants distributed throughout the territory. To support implementation of water safety planning, a
tool was developed to improve the management and integration of shared operational data for water treatment
plants whose source water comes from the same catchment area.
The programme involved:
C developing a computer application to systematize entry and management of data on source and process
water quality;
C developing digital infrastructure to allow data registration and transmission in real time; and
C training personnel.
Following roll-out of the tool, a significant improvement was seen in drinking-water safety management. The
tool allowed improved risk management because the real-time data on source water quality could be used to
anticipate chemical dosing at the water treatment plant in response to changes detected in the catchment,
combined with historical operational information.
This tool supports agile and proactive decision-making, and provides early warning of changes in source water
quality. The programme improved communication and synergy between the different water treatment plants. It
also motivated personnel to implement the WSP because they could see the benefits of real-time monitoring to
inform operations.

CASE STUDY 9.4 USE OF LOCAL EXPERIENCE TO IDENTIFY WATER SUPPLY VULNERABILITY TO CLIMATE IMPACTS, NEPAL
A water supply project has been implementing water safety planning, with a focus on The basic method applied (i.e. visual observation, interview and record keeping) has helped
building resilience to the impacts of climate change. To support strengthening of the the users’ organization to better understand the nature and frequency of the climate
resilience of the water supply to climate threats, the water users’ organization has kept threats that the water supply has experienced at the local scale. This can supplement more
basic records of climate events that are directly or indirectly linked to operation of the generalized climate projections that may only be available at district, national or regional
system. scales.
Examples of parameters that have been recorded by the users’ organization are shown in Further, vulnerable areas throughout the water supply can be readily identified from the
the table. study of these records, which can help to prioritize improvement measures.
Year
No. Indicator description
2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21
1 Flood at source (number of times) 22 17 27 52
2 Cleaning of sedimentation tank (number of times) 5 4 8 10
3 Backwashing of roughing filter (number of times) 1 1 1 1
4 High flood level (metres) 2 3.5 3 2.5
5 Continuous duration of closed source water intake due to high turbidity (hours) 18 16 30 54
6 Total duration of closed intake during monsoon due to high turbidity (hours) 176 136 221 152
7 Maximum turbidity measured at intake (nephelometric turbidity units) >1000 >1000 >1000 >1000
8 Special inspection with concerned authority and subcommittee in response to event (number of times) 4 7 12 12
9 Warning issued to people living near intake area (number of times) 1 2 4 2
10 Repair of source water transmission lines (number of times) 6 4 3 5
11 Repair of distribution lines (number of times) 360 390 420 510

variability and change. Section 5.6.2 gives further information on climate-related supporting
programmes for stakeholders.
WHO (2019). A guide to equitable water safety planning: ensuring no one is left behind. Section 4a
provides guidance and case studies on developing inclusive supporting programmes for all users.
International Water Association, DHI. Flood and drought management tools. A web-based decision-
making portal that provides a methodology and online tools to facilitate the inclusion of information
on floods and droughts, and future scenarios, in water safety planning. These approaches can support
planning from the transboundary basin level to the local (water supplier) level. For more information on
the tools, visit https://fdmt.iwlearn.org/.

MODULE Reviewing and updating the WSP
10 How will the WSP be kept up to date?
START HERE
Aim
To ensure that the WSP is up to date and reflects lessons learned from WSP WSP DEVELOPMENT
operational experiences
Planning for regular and as
required WSP reviews here
Key actions
D Conduct regular WSP reviews to make sure the WSP is kept up to date
D Review the WSP after a significant incident, near miss or emergency, and WSP REVIEW
update as needed AND UPDATE
WSP OPERATION
Regular and as
Key outputs required WSP reviews No specific action
conducted here, and
An up-to-date and effective WSP achieved through: updated as needed
D planned reviews of the overall WSP, including incorporating new

information, new processes and procedures, lessons from experiences,
analysis of monitoring data, audit findings and user feedback WSP VERIFICATION
D reassessment of risks following a significant incident, near miss or See Module 7
emergency, and after any modifications to improvement plans, to update
the risk assessment as needed
Module 10 in action

10.1 WHY DO WE NEED TO REVIEW AND UPDATE WSPs?
Regular WSP reviews help to ensure that the WSP is functioning effectively These can affect the system description, hazards and hazardous events, risk
by checking on progress, and regularly analyzing operational monitoring and assessments, improvement priorities and normal day-to-day WSP operation.
verification data. This helps to ensure continued support for the WSP process Each cycle of review and revision provides an opportunity for the WSP team to
beyond initial WSP development. An updated, relevant WSP will help to strengthen the WSP and its implementation in practice, including by integrating
maintain the confidence and motivation of staff and stakeholders in the water equity and climate change considerations.
safety planning process.
Opportunities for WSP improvement may also arise from significant incidents,
Planned WSP reviews are necessary because a WSP can quickly become out of near misses or emergencies; changes within the system; audits (and other
date through: forms of regulatory feedback); and the experiences of the WSP team, operators,
general staff and management, contractors, users and broader stakeholders.
D changes in conditions (e.g. at the source, treatment, distribution and
These should be incorporated into the WSP to ensure that it is up to date and
storage, and user-level stages);
effective as part of a continuous cycle of improvement.
D changes in the implementation of improvement plans (e.g. addition of a
new water treatment unit);
D changes in processes and procedures (e.g. SOPs); WSP REVIEWS AND WSP AUDITS – RELATED BUT DIFFERENT
D changes in staff and stakeholder contact details; Although distinct concepts, WSP review (Module 10) and WSP auditing (Module
7) are similar in that the results of both activities contribute to the ongoing
D organizational changes within the water supplier or external bodies; improvement of the WSP.
D new information on existing or emerging parameters of concern; and Importantly, WSP reviews are typically led by the WSP team, whereas a WSP
audit should be independent of the WSP team to help ensure transparency and
D changes in regulatory requirements. avoid potential conflicts of interest.
A WSP is a “living” document that must be updated regularly

to remain relevant, useful and effective

10.2 REVIEWING AND UPDATING THE
WSP – KEY ACTIONS
10.2.1 Conduct regular WSP reviews

Plan regular dedicated WSP review meetings to ensure that changes and events
that could threaten effective implementation of the WSP are regularly assessed and
addressed.
In addition to planned review meetings, consider other circumstances that could

periodically trigger full or partial reviews (see examples in Fig. 10.1). Proactively
review the WSP before any significant water supply changes are implemented.
Conduct WSP reviews at the frequency documented in the WSP, or following the
agreed review triggers (see section 10.4). Cover all aspects of the WSP during a
full review to ensure that they are still accurate. As part of the review, involve local
operators and undertake site visits as required. Assess operational monitoring and
verification results to determine whether trends point to areas of WSP operation
that may require strengthening. Review progress on any stated WSP objectives,
targets and key performance indicators.
As required, update the WSP in light of the review, ensuring adequate document
control for new versions of the WSP for traceability and auditing purposes. Case Fig. 10.1 Circumstances that may trigger full or partial reviews of the WSP
study 10.1 provides an example agenda for routine WSP review meetings.
The supplementary tool Module 10: checklists for conducting WSP reviews provides
key questions to consider when conducting WSP reviews. This tool can support general
WSP reviews, as well as reviews that focus on strengthening equity and climate
considerations as part of continuous WSP improvement. Available at: https://wsportal.
org/resource/wsp-manual-supplementary-tool-module-10-checklists-for-conducting-
wsp-reviews/.

10.2.2 Review the WSP after a significant 10.3 RECORDING THE OUTPUTS FROM
incident, near miss or emergency MODULE 10
Review the WSP following any significant incident, near miss or emergency, and
Document in the WSP the frequency of planned WSP reviews, along with the
revise it as needed to help ensure that all risks are adequately managed.
triggers for periodic review.
Following a significant incident, near miss or emergency:
Document investigations into significant incidents, near misses or emergencies,
D undertake an investigation involving the relevant staff and stakeholders including any recommendations for revisions to the WSP that may arise from
to discuss performance and key lessons learned; these incidents.
D assess whether current procedures are adequate; and

D address any issues or concerns that are identified.
Ensure that the detail and depth of such a review are commensurate with the
significance of the event – more significant events warrant a more in-depth
review. Review the cause(s) of the event and the response to the event to
determine whether any amendments to WSP are necessary (e.g. changes to
existing protocols, risk assessments). This may help to minimize the risk of
recurrence or improve future responses.
Case study 10.2 documents how a review of historical emergency responses

could be used to help strengthen emergency management.
The supplementary tool Module 10: WSP review checklist presents key questions
to consider in a review following an event and a suggested process to assist with
a successful review. Available at: https://wsportal.org/resource/wsp-manual-
supplementary-tool-module-10-checklists-for-conducting-wsp-reviews/.

Deciding on an appropriate frequency for Securing appropriate input to strengthen WSP
regular WSP reviews reviews
The frequency of regular WSP review meetings can require a fine balance Although the WSP team must be engaged in reviewing the WSP, they may
– meetings too often may cause fatigue and unnecessarily consume human often lack the day-to-day field experience or fresh perspectives that may be
resources, whereas having meetings too infrequently may miss important invaluable in identifying faults and improving practices.
information and updates. In addition to the WSP team, WSP reviews should ideally include
Although the frequency will depend on the local context (e.g. maturity of the representatives with responsibility for the operation of the various components
WSP, available resources), a general guide is as follows. of the system. These people will have important and often new insights that
can support strengthening of the WSP. Involving these people can also improve
D WSP review meetings: once or twice per year, or immediately when their sense of WSP ownership. It is important that management, including
there is a significant change of circumstance within the drinking-water executive management, are also involved in the WSP review process to
supply. raise their awareness of change and ensure their support for ongoing WSP
D Review meetings after significant incidents, near misses or implementation.
emergencies: immediately after the event.
It may also be beneficial to conduct review meetings before an audit (or other Encourage all staff to contribute ideas for amending practices to improve the
operation of the WSP – for instance, during regular employee seminars or
regulatory feedback), to prepare for the audit, as well as after an audit, in line
retreats, during internal audits, or using mechanisms for reporting new potential
with any recommendations for improvement that may arise from these activities. hazards and hazardous events (e.g. template forms, suggestion boxes in field
depots).
Revisit the frequency or triggers for meetings as WSP experience is gained
This can help to raise organizational awareness and support for water safety
to determine the most appropriate time frame or change in circumstance to
planning, which underpins sustainable and effective WSP implementation.
conduct these activities. Document any changes to the meeting frequency or
review triggers in the WSP.

EXAMPLE OF A 6-MONTHLY WSP INCIDENT AND EMERGENCY REVIEW TO
CASE STUDY 10.1 CASE STUDY 10.2 STRENGTHEN EMERGENCY RESPONSE
REVIEW MEETING AGENDA, PORTUGAL
MANAGEMENT, THAILAND
C Follow-up action from previous WSP audit
C Progress in implementation of improvement plans As part of a WSP review, the water supplier reviewed historical incidents and
C Actions from significant changes in the organization emergencies from 1982 to 2015. These were summarized in a table with the following
headings:
C Actions from occurrence of events that affect hazards or hazardous events
C Evaluation of the effectiveness of corrective actions Short description of incident Resolution of
Date Impact
C Progress with implementation of supporting programmes or emergency problem
Through this process, the WSP team categorized a number of diverse incidents and
emergencies, including:
C seawater intrusion;
GENERAL TIPS FOR SUCCESSFUL WSP REVIEWS C cyanobacterial blooms in source water;
☑ Convene the whole WSP team and, where necessary, internal and
C burst distribution pipes;
external stakeholders, and experts relevant to the review.
☑ Maintain institutional knowledge when staff change. C major flood crisis;
☑ Use an appropriate document control system, and keep records of changes C sinking of brown sugar and rice barges in river;
made to the WSP. C high turbidity from heavy rain due to tropical storm; and
☑ Ensure that stakeholders are kept informed of issues relevant to C accidental diesel spill in source water.
their expertise and contributions.
☑ Conduct an open and honest appraisal of the cause, chain of events and One of the key outcomes from this review was incorporation of the lessons learned
factors leading to any significant incident or near-miss situations. from these issues into the ERPs (Module 8) for each system.
☑ Provide a constructive environment for the review that focuses on
positive lessons learned rather than attributing blame.

WHO (2014). Water safety in distribution systems. Chapters 10 and 11 give guidance on conducting
periodic reviews and post-incident reviews for distribution systems.
WHO (2016a). Protecting surface water for health: identifying, assessing and managing drinking-
water quality risks in surface-water catchments. Sections 4.9 and 4.10 include guidance on
conducting periodic reviews and post-incident reviews for surface water systems, including a
checklist for WSP reviews.

IV
PART
Toolbox
The following section provides basic templates to support early-stage WSP teams to get started.
The toolbox materials are available to download in editable formats from https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240067691.
WSP teams should review the toolbox materials and adapt them as needed to suit their local context.
IV. Toolbox
MODULE 1: WSP TEAM MEMBERSHIP AND MEETING TEMPLATES
1a. WSP team membership template

Illustrative examples are provided in grey in the table and should be deleted before using the template.
NAME JOB TITLE SKILLS, KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERTISE RELEVANT TO WSP ROLE IN WSP TEAM CONTACT DETAILS
T Boss Operations Manager Water supply operations, including water treatment and Team leader Phone: 456 780 906
management Coordination with all external Mobile: 254 452 405
stakeholders Email: [email protected]
AB Drinkwater Water supply operator Catchment and source water management Liaison with catchment authority Phone: 458 742 310
Mobile: 255 690 706
Email: [email protected]
C Grazier Farmers Association Farming operations in catchment Liaison with farming operations in Phone: 789 88 555
chairperson catchment Mobile: 258 111698
Email: [email protected]

1b. Template for recording a WSP team meeting
Date
Purpose
Attendees
Agenda and record
ITEM ISSUE KEY POINTS DUE PERSON(S) COMMENTS ON

ACTION(S) STATUS
NO. DISCUSSEDa RAISED DATE RESPONSIBLE FOLLOW-UP/OUTCOME
1 Review of actions from previous
meeting
2 Review of operational monitoring
data, including outliers and trends
3 Review of recent events that may
trigger future review
4 Improvement plan status update
5 Communication protocol updates
6 Any other business
Next meeting on: [insert date]
a Example agenda items are included that are typically discussed at WSP team meetings as rolling agenda items. These illustrative examples in grey should be updated to reflect the local context.
Part IV: Toolbox 115

MODULE 4: RISK ASSESSMENT TABLE TEMPLATE
An illustrative example is provided in grey in the table and should be deleted before using the template.
Are existing control measures effective? Risk with controls in place
Hazard type
Somewhat
Likelihood
Risk score
Risk level
Existing
Severity
Process Hazardous control measure Validation
Yes
No. step event description notes
No
Lock is robust and well fitting.
Treated water storage tank Weekly site inspection records
is contaminated with faecal confirm that the lock is in good
Medium
Distribution
5 material from animals (X) M Access hatch lock condition and the hatch is ✓ 2 5 10
(storage tank)
due to the access hatch on locked securely.
the tank roof being open (Y) No historical microbiological
issues recorded for the tank.
Module 3 Module 4
Notes:
D This is a template for a single-stage risk assessment. For an example of a dual-stage risk assessment, see Annex 4.
D The order of the “Hazardous event” and “Hazard type” columns can be switched to suit the WSP team’s preference.

MODULE 5: IMPROVEMENT PLAN TEMPLATE
IMPROVEMENT PLAN AS AT [INSERT DATE]

SPECIFIC RESPONSIBLE SOURCE OF
ARISING FROM ESTIMATED COST DUE DATE STATUS
IMPROVEMENT ACTION PARTY(IES) FUNDING
Construction of an High turbidity in the filtered water due to hydraulic Water $150 000 Utility capital [insert date] Not yet started
additional filter unit overloading of the existing filter unit to meet water demand utility asset expenditure
Risk assessment table reference: [insert corresponding row management budget
number from the risk assessment table] manager
MODULE 6: OPERATIONAL MONITORING TEMPLATES

6a. Operational monitoring plan template
OPERATIONAL MONITORING PLAN

CORRECTIVE ACTION IF ACCEPTABLE
PROCESS WHAT TO
CONTROL MEASURE WHERE WHEN HOW WHO CRITICAL LIMIT(S) LIMITS ARE BREACHED (what action
STEP MONITOR
and who is responsible, or refer to SOP)
Distribution/ Covered storage tank roof Condition of At the Weekly Visual Network Storage tank roof in good Refer to tank maintenance SOP No.
storage Risk assessment table the storage storage inspection of operator condition that prevents XY
(storage tank) reference: [insert tank roof and tank the condition contamination from
corresponding row number access hatch of the roof and entering the tank. Access
from the risk assessment table] access hatch hatch closed and locked.

6b. Operational monitoring plan log sheets To help operational staff to complete the monitoring set out in the operational
monitoring plan, logs should include:
To help operational staff to perform operational monitoring as part of their
routine duties, operational monitoring logs should be developed – these may D the monitoring location (e.g. sample point code and description);
be paper sheets or in a digital format. These provide: D the monitoring to be performed;
D the frequency at which the monitoring should be performed;
D clear guidance for the operational staff on the type and frequency of
D the corresponding critical limit;
operational monitoring that needs to be completed;
D who performs the monitoring; and
D a record of water quality testing results to show historical water quality
D any corrective actions taken.
trends; and
D a record of operational monitoring activities for WSP verification and It is important to include the critical limit on the log sheet so field staff can
auditing purposes. clearly see when the value has been breached and corrective action is
required. The operational monitoring plan may then be consulted to determine
The logged data used for developing historical water quality trends (e.g.
what corrective action must be taken. For digital log sheets, this can be coded
establishing seasonal water quality patterns) may also assist with setting
as an automatic warning when a value is entered that breaches a critical limit,
appropriate and effective critical limits, and can inform control measure
linking to the corrective action required.
validation.
An example operational monitoring plan log sheet for water quality
measurements at a water treatment plant is provided below.
D = DAILY
ROUTINE OPERATIONAL MONITORING W = WEEKLY
M = MONTHLY
SOURCE WATER WATER TREATMENT PLANT
SEDIMENTATION SEDIMENTATION RAW WATER BASIN OUTLET FILTER OUTLET CLEAR WATER BASIN INLET CLEAR WATER BASIN OUTLET CORRECTIVE ACTION
COMPLETED
DATE/TIME TANK INLET TANK OUTLET (SP-WTP-001) (SP-WTP-002) (SP-WTP-004) (SP-WTP-005) TAKEN/ COMMENTS/
BY:
(SP-S-001) (SP-S-002) OBSERVATIONS
TURBIDITY (NTU) M TURBIDITY (NTU) M pH W TURBIDITY (NTU) D TURBIDITY (NTU) D TURBIDITY (NTU) D CHLORINE (mg/L) º pH W TURBIDITY (NTU) D CHLORINE (mg/L) º TEMPERATURE (ºC) W
CRITICAL LIMIT N.A. < 500 (<1,000 Monsoon) 6.5 - 8.5 < 500 (<1,000 Monsoon) <5 <5 0.8 to 1.5 6.5 - 8.5 <5 0.5 to 0.9 n.a.
Sample point Parameters, sample For sample frequency examples

code linked frequencies and critical shown, see legend
to system limits are for illustration
diagrams purposes only
Example of an operational monitoring log sheet for a water treatment plant

MODULE 7: COMPLIANCE MONITORING TEMPLATE
Supporting text is provided in grey in the table and should be deleted before using the template.
WHAT PARAMETER IS WHERE IS IT SAMPLED? METHOD WHEN WHO IS RESPONSIBLE? ACCEPTABILITY RECORDING AND ACTIONING
TESTED? CRITERIA
e.g. E. coli, free Provide detailed sampling Reference to Frequency of e.g. water supplier Note the upper or Note where and when test
chlorine residual, locations or reference points SOPs sampling operators, laboratory lower acceptability results are recorded if not
turbidity, pH based on regulatory requirements field staff, external limits, as appropriate included in the SOP.
or internal water supplier agency Record responsibilities
requirements. (Maps or drawings for action in case of non-
may be referred to for clarity.) compliance.

MODULE 8: MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE TEMPLATES
8a. Standard operating procedures template
Standard operating procedure: [insert title] SOP no. [insert number]

PURPOSE: [State the aim of this SOP]
VERSION: DATE ISSUED: AUTHORIZED BY:

[Include a version number for quality control] [DD/MM/YYYY] [Name of authorizing officer]
TRAINING REQUIRED: [Describe any training requirements for conducting IMPORTANT SAFETY NOTE: [Describe any particular operator safety hazards
this activity] associated with conducting this activity, including any personal protective
equipment required]
PROCEDURE: [Picture, if appropriate]
Person assessed: ____________ Assessed by: ____________ Date: ____________
Assessment outcome (circle): Competent / Not yet competent

8b. Emergency response plan template
Emergency response plan: [insert title]

Definition of emergency [This should define the criteria for this event]
Reporting procedures
Who to report to
When to report
Method of reporting
Communications requirements: internal
Communications requirements: external stakeholders
(e.g. health agencies, emergency services, user groups)
Communications requirements: public [Remember to consider all diverse user groups]
Identification of roles and responsibilities for both responses and communication
List of contact details for key personnel and alternative contact options
Source(s) of emergency water supplies
Additional treatment requirements for alternative source (if relevant)
Relevant standard operating procedures (SOPs) for responding to the emergency
Type and location of equipment (including back-up equipment)
Water quality monitoring requirements [e.g. parameter/frequency, in-house or external testing]
Processes and templates for issuing public advisories, such as boil water notices
Responsibilities for issuing public advisories (i.e. water supplier or public health agency)
Criteria for closing the emergency

References NHMRC (National Health and Medical Research Council), NRMMC (National
Resource Management Ministerial Council) (2011). Australian drinking water
guidelines 6. Canberra: NHMRC (https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/file/16934/
ADB (Asian Development Bank) (2020). Guidelines for drinking water safety planning download?token=gAKh3uQk, accessed 24 August 2022).
for West Bengal. Manila: ADB (https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/institutional-
document/664691/guidelines-drinking-water-safety-planning-west-bengal.pdf, Rickert B, van den Berg H (2021). Climate-resilient water safety plans: compilation
accessed 13 January 2023). Case study II.3 is an adaptation of an original work titled of potential hazardous events and their causes. Germany: German Environment
Guidelines for Drinking Water Safety Planning for West Bengal. © ADB. https://www. Agency (UBA), Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment
adb.org/documents/guidelines-drinking-water-safety-planning-west-bengal CC-BY (RIVM) (https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/5620/
3.0 IGO. The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily dokumente/2021_05_14_compilation_of_potential_hazardous_events_and_their_
reflect the views and policies of ADB or its Board of Governors or the governments causes_for_climate_resilient_water_safety_plan.pdf, accessed 24 August 2022).
they represent. ADB does not endorse this work or guarantee the accuracy of the
Setty K, Ferrero G (2021). Water safety plans. Glob Public Health. Published online 26
data included in this publication and accepts no responsibility for any consequence
May 2021. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190632366.013.338.
of their use.
Setty K, Kayser G, Bowling M, Enault M, Loret JF, Puigdomenech C, et al. (2017).
Gunnarsdóttir M, Gardarsson S, Elliott M, Sigmundsdóttir G, Bartram J (2012). Benefits
Water quality, compliance, and health outcomes among utilities implementing
of water safety plans: microbiology, compliance, and public health. Environ Sci
water safety plans in France and Spain. Int J Hyg Environ Health. 220(3):513–30.
Technol. 46:7782–9. doi:10.1021/es300372h.
doi:10.1016/j.ijheh.2017.02.004.
Hunter Water (2011). Catchment management plan. Newcastle: Hunter Water (https://
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) (2007). Guidance for
www.hunterwater.com.au/documents/assets/src/uploads/documents/Plans--
preparing standard operating procedures. Washington, DC: USEPA (https://www.
Strategies/CatchmentMangementPlan_FINAL_Mar2011_lowres.pdf, accessed 17
epa.gov/quality/guidance-preparing-standard-operating-procedures-epa-qag-6-
January 2023).
march-2001, accessed 24 August 2022).
Kayser G, Loret JF, Setty K, Blaudin De Thé C, Martin J, Puigdomenech C, et al.
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) (2022). Preparing for
(2019). Water safety plans for water supply utilities in China, Cuba, France, Morocco
emergencies. Washington, DC: USEPA (https://www.epa.gov/sourcewaterprotection/
and Spain: costs, benefits, and enabling environment elements. Urban Water J.
preparing-emergencies, accessed 24 August 2022).
16(4):277–88. doi:10.1080/1573062X.2019.1669191.
URSEA (Unidad Regulatoria de Servicios de Energía y Agua) (2018). Reglamento de
Kumpel E, Delaire C, Peletz R, Kisiangani J, Rinehold A, De France J, et al. (2018).
Planes de Seguridad del Agua en Uruguay. Montevideo: URSEA (https://www.gub.
Measuring the impacts of water safety plans in the Asia–Pacific region. Int J Environ
uy/unidad-reguladora-servicios-energia-agua/comunicacion/noticias/reglamento-
Res Public Health. 15(6):1223. doi:10.3390/ijerph15061223.
planes-seguridad-agua, accessed 31 August 2022).

von Sperling M, Verbyla ME, Oliveira SMAC (2020). Assessment of treatment WHO (World Health Organization) (2014). Water safety in distribution systems.
plant performance and water quality data: a guide for students, researchers and Geneva: WHO (https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/204422, accessed 24 August
practitioners. London: International Water Association (https://www.iwapublishing. 2022).
com/books/9781780409313/assessment-treatment-plant-performance-and-water-
WHO (World Health Organization) (2016a). Protecting surface water for health:
quality-data-guide-students, accessed 24 August 2022).
identifying, assessing and managing drinking-water quality risks in surface-water
Water Research Australia (2020). Good practice guide to the operation of drinking- catchments. Geneva: WHO (https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/246196, accessed
water supply systems for the management of microbial risk, second edition. 24 August 2022).
Adelaide: Water Research Australia (https://www.waterra.com.au/project/update-
WHO (World Health Organization) (2016b). Quantitative microbial risk assessment:
the-good-practice-guide-to-the-operation-of-drinking-water-supply-systems-for-the-
application for water safety management. Geneva: WHO (https://www.who.int/
management-of-microbial-risk-gpg/, accessed 24 August 2022).
publications/i/item/9789241565370, accessed 24 August 2022).
WHO (World Health Organization) (2006). Protecting groundwater for health:
WHO (2017a). Climate-resilient water safety plans: managing health risks associated
managing the quality of drinking-water sources. Geneva: WHO (https://apps.who.int/
with climate variability and change. Geneva: WHO (https://apps.who.int/iris/
iris/handle/10665/43186, accessed 24 August 2022).
handle/10665/258722, accessed 11 October 2022).
WHO (World Health Organization) (2007). Chemical safety of drinking-water:
WHO (World Health Organization) (2017b). Global status report on water safety
assessing priorities for risk management. Geneva: WHO (https://apps.who.int/iris/
plans: a review of proactive risk assessment and risk management practices
handle/10665/43285, accessed 24 August 2022).
to ensure the safety of drinking-water. Geneva: WHO. (https://apps.who.int/iris/
WHO (World Health Organization) (2011a). Water safety in buildings. Geneva: WHO handle/10665/255649, accessed 29 August 2022).
(https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/76145, accessed 24 August 2022).
WHO (World Health Organization) (2018a). Strengthening operations and
WHO (World Health Organization) (2011b). Safe drinking-water from desalination: maintenance through water safety planning: a collection of case studies. Geneva:
guidance on risk assessment and risk management procedures to ensure the WHO (https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/274426, accessed 2 September 2022).
safety of desalinated drinking-water. Geneva: WHO (https://apps.who.int/iris/
WHO (World Health Organization) (2018b). Developing drinking-water quality
handle/10665/70621, accessed 24 August 2022).
regulations and standards: general guidance with a special focus on countries with
WHO (World Health Organization) (2012). Water safety planning for small community limited resources. Geneva: WHO (https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/272969,
water supplies: step-by-step risk management guidance for drinking-water supplies accessed 24 August 2022).
in small communities. Geneva: WHO (https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/75145,
WHO (World Health Organization) (2019). A guide to equitable water safety
accessed 24 August 2022).
planning: ensuring no one is left behind. Geneva: WHO (https://apps.who.int/iris/
handle/10665/311148, accessed 11 October 2022).

WHO (World Health Organization) (2022). Guidelines for drinking water quality, fourth WHO (World Health Organization), IWA (International Water Association) (2015). A
edition incorporating the first and second addenda. Geneva: WHO (https://apps.who. practical guide to auditing water safety plans. Geneva: WHO (https://www.who.int/
int/iris/handle/10665/352532, accessed 24 August 2022). publications/i/item/9789241509527, accessed 24 August 2022).
WHO (World Health Organization) (in press). Guidelines for drinking-water quality: WHO (World Health Organization), IWA (International Water Association). Water
risk-based management, regulation and surveillance of small water supplies. Geneva: Safety Portal [website]. Geneva: WHO (www.wsportal.org, accessed 29 August
WHO (https://www.who.int/teams/environment-climate-change-and-health/water- 2022).
sanitation-and-health/water-safety-and-quality/water-safety-planning/sanitary-
inspection-packages – sanitary inspection packages that support implementation of
the guidelines). SUPPLEMENTARY TOOLS TO SUPPORT
WHO (World Health Organization) (2022). Sanitation safety planning: step-by-step
APPLICATION OF THE GUIDANCE IN
risk management for safely managed sanitation systems. Geneva: WHO (https:// THIS MANUAL
apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/364586, accessed on 13 January 2023).
Aquatown water safety plan: worked example
WHO SEARO (World Health Organization, Regional Office for South-East Asia)
(2017a). Operational monitoring plan development: a guide to strengthening Module 2: System description checklist.
operational monitoring practices in small- to medium-sized water supplies. Delhi:
WHO SEARO (https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/255753, accessed 24 August Module 3: Possible threats to the supply of safe drinking-water.
2022).
Module 4: Examples of risk assessment matrices.
WHO SEARO (World Health Organization, Regional Office for South-East Asia)
Module 8: General checklist for emergency preparedness.
(2017b). Principles and practices of drinking-water chlorination: a guide to
strengthening chlorination practices in small- to medium-sized water supplies. Delhi: Module 10: Checklists for WSP reviews.
WHO SEARO (https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/255145, accessed 24 August
2022).
WHO (World Health Organization), IWA (International Water Association) (2010). Think
big, start small, scale up: a road map to support country-level implementation of
water safety plans. Geneva: WHO (https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/think-
big-start-small-scale-up, accessed 2 September 2022).

Annexes
ANNEX 1: KEY CHANGES INCORPORATED TABLE A1.1 • KEY CHANGES INCLUDED IN THE SECOND
EDITION OF THE WATER SAFETY PLAN MANUAL
INTO THE SECOND EDITION MODULE IN THE
SECOND EDITION
KEY CHANGES
This second edition of the WSP manual updates the first edition to reflect over 10 years of 3 and 4 Definitions of hazards modified to: M: microbial
hazard; C: chemical hazard; R: radiological
practical water safety planning experiences around the globe. The major changes made in
hazard; A: acceptability hazard; Q: quantity-
this edition of the manual are: related hazard
Inclusion of hazardous events related to climate
D clarification on water reliability and water quantity issues;
change and equity in the process
D enhanced guidance on equity considerations to ensure equitable benefit for all users, Movement of risk assessment information to
and to strengthen WSP effectiveness through an inclusive WSP approach; Module 4 (included in both Modules 3 and 4 in
the first edition)
D inclusion of aspects relating to water safety planning for climate resilience;
Clarification on single- and dual-stage risk
D greater emphasis on a progressive improvement approach to WSP development; assessments
D expansion of the section on challenges in each module, reflecting key issues commonly 5 Inclusion of guidance on selecting which
encountered by water suppliers when developing and implementing WSPs, with hazardous events need improved control, as
addition of a section on practical solutions; identified in Module 4
More emphasis on the progressive improvement
D more emphasis on the sustained and effective implementation of water safety
philosophy
planning, through development of a ‘water safety planning in action’ concept (requiring
6 and 7 Clarification of the ongoing role of operational
continuous cycles of WSP development, operation, verification and review), and a monitoring
greater focus on monitoring and other modules important for WSP implementation; and
Clarification of the distinction between
D inclusion of a toolbox section, which provides practical templates and tools to support operational monitoring (Module 6) and
completion of the modules by early-stage WSP practitioners (see Table A1.1 for more verification (Module 7)
information). 10 Combining of previous Modules 10 and 11
Where a WSP was developed based on the guidance in the first edition of the manual, the
changes included in the second edition can be considered by WSP teams during review
of their WSP. Those that are deemed to be useful in the local context can be gradually
integrated into future iterations of the WSP.
Annexes 125
ANNEX 2: MANAGING WSPs FOR MULTIPLE SYSTEMS
Where a water supplier is responsible for managing a stand-alone drinking- Another approach to organizing multiple WSPs for different water supplies
water supply, a WSP would be developed for that system. Where a water under the one supplier is for:
supplier or authority is responsible for managing more than one drinking-water
D common information to be included in the overarching WSP; and
supply, the WSP(s) for these multiple systems can be structured in a number
of ways. D common risks to be managed in a coordinated system – for example,
including the distribution networks and customer interfaces in one
D A single WSP can encompass all systems. common risk assessment table.
D Several WSPs can be created, with each plan covering one water supply
Individual water treatment plants always need to be considered separately, with
or a group of related water supplies.
their own hazard analysis and risk assessments. This is because every water
D A combination of the above could be used, involving a high-level, treatment plant will have its own equipment, design, processes, source water
overarching WSP and a series of subordinate WSPs that are specific to characteristics, and operational targets and parameters.
each water supply.
Where bulk source water (e.g. catchment or source water storage reservoir)
Initially, the water supplier should: or bulk treatment is managed by an agency other than the water supplier (e.g.
identify distinct “drinking-water supplies” and clearly define their a bulk water supplier agency), interfaces between the agency’s WSP and the
D
boundaries; and water supplier’s WSP need to be carefully defined so that responsibilities are
clear. There must also be clear communication protocols established so that
D decide how the individual water supplies will be grouped for WSP
changes in bulk source water or bulk treatment are effectively communicated to
implementation.
manage risks downstream.
A WSP for one water supply is often developed as a “pilot” before moving
See Case studies A2.1 and A2.2 for examples of managing WSPs for multiple
on to encompass the other water supplies. Once the pilot WSP has been
systems in practice.
sufficiently developed, other water supplies are incorporated by extending
the existing WSP.

CASE STUDY A2.1 WATER SAFETY PLANNING APPROACHES FOR DIFFERENT SUPPLY ARRANGEMENTS, AUSTRALIA
Bulk water supply arrangements for Melbourne’s metropolitan area WSP approach for multiple towns, Coliban Water
The Melbourne metropolitan drinking-water supply provides drinking-water services to Coliban Water provides drinking-water services across an area of 16 550 square kilometres
more than 4 million people. The water supply is managed through a model involving four in north-central Victoria. The organization provides drinking-water to 49 towns, which are
utilities: a “wholesaler” supplies the treated bulk drinking-water to three “retailers”, who divided into 42 water sampling localities, or zones, and serviced by 19 water treatment
are responsible for distribution to users. plants (a single water treatment plant may supply drinking-water to multiple towns).
The wholesaler, Melbourne Water, is responsible for the catchment, storage, treatment In designing the organization’s WSP, Coliban Water had to decide whether it prepared:
and the “transfer” network, and owns and operates four major water treatment plants. The
three retailers (Yarra Valley Water, South East Water and Greater Western Water) manage C a single WSP that covered all water supplies;
and operate the distribution networks. The retailers network consists of defined water C separate WSPs based on each town supplied with drinking-water (i.e. 49 separate
quality zones based on sources of supply and system hydraulics. WSPs); or
The water suppliers faced the challenge of developing a WSP model to enable the safe C separate WSPs for each water treatment plant (i.e. 19 separate WSPs).
and seamless management of risks from catchment through to the user interface. To best
In the end, it was decided to produce a single WSP for the organization because this would
address this, the WSP structure adopted by the four water utilities is as follows.
minimize duplication, given that many aspects of the WSP apply across the organization
C Melbourne Water’s overarching WSP contains common elements relevant to all water and each supply network. A single WSP also means that all relevant information can be
treatment plants and the transfer network. found in a single document rather than being spread across multiple documents, which
would streamline WSP review and revision.
C Melbourne Water has treatment plant–specific sub-WSPs that cover specific source
water and treatment, as well as site-specific emergency response plans (ERPs). Within the single WSP, there are subsections that are specific to each water treatment plant
C Three separate WSPs for the retailers cover separate and clearly defined geographical (covering specific source water risks, available treatment capacity and critical control point
areas and customer bases. plans) and each town (covering sampling plans, booster chlorinators and treated water
storage risks).
This approach has the benefit of eliminating duplication of common elements, allowing
operational staff to easily work across multiple water treatment plants and water supplies, A challenge was to avoid creating generic subsections that add little value to the
as well as effectively managing risks transferred from the wholesaler to retailers. management of risk. To avoid this, individual risk registers and risk assessments were
conducted for each water treatment plant and town. These are updated and reviewed at
Robust and transparent emergency management structures across the four water regular intervals to ensure that new and emerging risks are captured and addressed. An
utilities are essential for the success of this WSP model. A legally binding comprehensive additional benefit of having a single WSP is that it allows operational staff to easily work
agreement (a bulk water supply agreement) between Melbourne Water and the retailers across multiple water treatment plants and water supplies, as the WSP has the same format
ensures clear accountabilities for both reliability of supply of water and water quality. and structure for each site.
Annexes 127
CASE STUDY A2.2 DEVELOPMENT OF STANDARDIZED WSP TYPES, SRI LANKA
The national water supply board operates 332 piped water supply schemes in Sri Lanka. This approach is consistent with the water safety planning principle of progressive
WSPs for 172 schemes have been successfully implemented since 2013. improvement – water suppliers can select particular stages of the water supply to “get
started” (e.g. beginning with the water treatment stage, which is under the full control of
Given that the majority of the drinking-water supply schemes are stand-alone catchment-to- the water supplier). Completion of the WSP for one stage can encourage expansion of the
consumer systems, the national advisory unit for WSP implementation adopted a standard WSP to ultimately cover the whole system.
template to develop individual WSPs for each of these schemes. An important feature of
this approach is the use of the same format for all WSPs, a single-stage risk matrix and Use of these three types of WSP has provided a flexible model for uniform WSP
uniform criteria for selection of operational monitoring parameters. The benefits include implementation across the country, driving uptake and enabling lessons learned to be
consistency in WSP implementation, and streamlined processes for WSP review, training shared across regions. The approach taken in Sri Lanka has helped to secure management
and auditing activities. support and resources for implementing priority improvements, and has boosted the
confidence and commitment of water suppliers, and empowered them to undertake water
Three WSP types have been implemented within this standardized process across Sri Lanka safety planning.
for effective scale-up and implementation of water safety planning:
Further efforts are exploring the feasibility of developing an overarching WSP common to
C total system from the catchment to the consumer; all systems, with subordinate system-specific WSPs. This would eliminate the duplication of
C catchment and treatment only; and common elements, such as objectives, management structures, and legal and regulatory
requirements.
C distribution system and consumer only.

ANNEX 3: INTEGRATING WSPs WITH EXISTING MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Water suppliers around the world have adopted various management systems, Table A3.1 provides a comparison of different management systems against
including certification to international standards. Management systems relevant the WSP modules, and shows how certified management systems can assist
and complementary to WSP implementation include: and complement WSP implementation. This table can be used to identify the
elements of existing management systems that may be integrated into the
D ISO 9001:2015 – Quality management systems;
WSP approach. For example, document control, audit and review elements
D ISO 22000:2018 – Food safety management systems; in ISO 9001:2015 could eliminate the extra effort required to develop
D Codex Alimentarius Commission – Hazard Analysis and Critical Control document management and auditing systems specific to WSP implementation.
Points (HACCP):2020 and Importantly, this exercise can be used to identify gaps in existing quality
management systems that need to be filled to enable effective integration with
D ISO 31000:2018 – Risk management.
water safety planning.
Although the components of these management systems are complementary
In certain contexts, integrated management systems can be adopted to ensure
to water safety planning, the water safety planning approach has been
streamlined and harmonious operation of the various systems and to prevent
specifically developed for water supplies, with unique elements specific to
duplication of activities.
the supply of safe drinking-water. While such management systems are not
required to embark on water safety planning, where water suppliers have To develop and implement a WSP, a minimum of three ticks (√√√) is required
existing management systems in place, these should be aligned with the WSP for each of the elements associated with the 10 modules in Table A3.1. Although
approach. the other frameworks in Table A3.1 are complementary to water safety planning,
in isolation they do not adequately address water supply–specific WSP
In such cases, water safety planning does not replace these management
requirements.
systems. Rather, the relevant management system elements should be
integrated within the water safety planning approach and strengthened as
needed. Additionally, water safety planning can add value to these existing
management systems – for example, by filling important gaps, such as at the
source (catchment) or user levels.
Annexes 129
TABLE A3.1 • COMMON ELEMENTS BETWEEN WSPS AND OTHER RISK MANAGEMENT APPROACHES THAT MAY REQUIRE STRENGTHENING WHEN INTEGRATING WITH THE
WSP APPROACH
WSP module Codex HACCP:2020 ISO 22000:2018 ISO 9001:2016 ISO 31000:2018
1. Assembling the WSP team
Establishing an experienced, multidisciplinary team ✓✓✓ ✓✓✓ ✓ ✓✓
Identifying stakeholders ✓ ✓✓ ✓ ✓✓
2. Describing the system
Describing the water supply (including system diagram) ✓✓✓ ✓✓✓ ✓ ✓
Understanding current and historical water quality ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Identifying users and uses ✓✓✓ ✓✓✓ ✓ ✓
3. Identifying hazards and hazardous events
Identifying hazards and their associated hazardous events for each stage of the water
✓✓✓ ✓✓✓ ✓ ✓
supply
4. Validating existing control measures and assessing risks
Evaluating the effectiveness of existing control measures and assessment of risks ✓✓✓ ✓✓✓ ✓ ✓✓
Determining risk levels for hazardous events, such that significant risks are prioritized for
✓✓✓ ✓✓✓ ✓ ✓✓
action
5. Planning for improvement
Developing and implementing an improvement plan to manage inadequately controlled risks ✓✓ ✓✓ ✓✓ ✓✓
6. Monitoring control measures
Identifying control measures to be monitored to ensure their effectiveness ✓✓ ✓✓ ✓ ✓
Developing an operational monitoring plan for control measures, including establishing

✓✓✓ ✓✓✓ ✓ ✓
performance limits (including critical limits) and defining corrective actions
Establishing corrective actions when operational monitoring indicates that the control
✓✓✓ ✓✓✓ ✓✓ ✓✓
measure is not working as intended
✓: limited/no coverage – does not meet WSP objectives, and significant alignment required; ✓✓: moderate coverage – alignment required to meet WSP objectives; ✓✓✓: adequate coverage – satisfies
minimum WSP objectives.

TABLE A3.1 CONTINUED • COMMON ELEMENTS BETWEEN WSPs AND OTHER RISK MANAGEMENT APPROACHES THAT MAY REQUIRE STRENGTHENING WHEN
INTEGRATING WITH THE WSP APPROACH
WSP module Codex HACCP:2020 ISO 22000:2018 ISO 9001:2016 ISO 31000:2018
7. Verifying the effectiveness of water safety planning
Developing and implementing verification programmes to confirm that: ✓✓✓ ✓✓✓ ✓ ✓
C drinking-water quality regulations and standards are being met;

C users are satisfied; and
C the WSP is complete, adequately implemented and effective
8. Strengthening management procedures
Documenting procedures for normal operation and incidents ✓✓✓ ✓✓✓ ✓ ✓
Documenting procedures for emergency situations ✓ ✓✓ ✓ ✓
9. Strengthening WSP supporting programmes
Developing and implementing programmes that support and sustain effective WSP
implementation (including equipment calibration, training, customer complaint protocols ✓✓ ✓✓ ✓✓ ✓
and preventive maintenance programmes)
10. Reviewing and updating the WSP
Keeping the WSP up to date ✓✓✓ ✓✓✓ ✓✓ ✓✓
Regularly reviewing the WSP, including after significant incidents, near misses or
✓ ✓✓ ✓ ✓
emergencies, and revision as necessary
✓: limited/no coverage – does not meet WSP objectives, and significant alignment required; ✓✓: moderate coverage – alignment required to meet WSP objectives; ✓✓✓: adequate coverage – satisfies
minimum WSP objectives.
Annexes 131
ANNEX 4: SINGLE-STAGE VERSUS DUAL-STAGE RISK ASSESSMENT APPROACHES
Risk assessments consider the effectiveness of existing control measures
to determine the level of new or strengthened control measures that are
needed. This is considered “residual risk” – that is, the risk that remains after
consideration of the effectiveness of the existing control measure.
However, in some contexts, the WSP team may find it valuable to first assess
the “raw risk” in the (hypothetical) absence of existing control measures.
The raw risk (sometimes referred to as the “inherent risk”) is the risk before
including consideration of the impact of the existing control measures.
Two risk assessment approaches are therefore possible:
D single-stage risk assessment – determines the residual risk only; and

D dual-stage risk assessment – determines both raw risk and residual risk.
Table A4.1 illustrates the dual-stage risk assessment approach. For ease of
comparison, the raw risk assessment has been built on the single-stage risk
assessment example previously provided in Table 4.3.
A dual-stage risk assessment can help WSP teams to identify which control
measures are significant – that is, what the impact on the risk profile would be if
the control measure failed. This can help to identify where strengthened control
measures may be required, and which control measures may require inclusion
in the operational monitoring plan (Module 6).
The advantages and disadvantages of single-stage and dual-stage risk

assessment approaches are shown in Fig. A4.1.
Fig. A4.1 Comparison of single-stage and dual-stage risk assessments

TABLE A4.1 • EXAMPLE OF A DUAL-STAGE RISK ASSESSMENT TABLE
RAW RISK Are existing control measures effective? RESIDUAL RISK
Hazard type
Somewhat
Likelihood
Likelihood
Risk score
Risk score
Risk level
Risk level
Existing
Severity
Severity
Process Hazardous control measure Validation
Yes
No
No.* step event description notes
Less water is available per person (X)
Medium
Medium
Source No existing control Not applicable
2 because of increased demand from a Q 3 3 9 - - - 3 3 9
(catchment) measure
proposed new power plant (Y)
Standby (back-up)
Chlorine concentration in the treated Operational logs demonstrate
chlorine pump in
water leaving the treatment plant is successful monthly changeover
Medium
Treatment place in addition
High
4 too low for effective disinfection (X) M 4 5 20 from duty pump to standby pump. ✓ - - 2 5 10
(chlorination) to duty pump,
because of chlorine pump breakdown No historical incident of loss of
with automatic
(Y) chlorination due to pump breakdown.
switchover
Storage tank water is intentionally Field logbook has recorded no

M
Medium
Distribution contaminated (X) because of historical security incidents, and
Low
5 A 2 5 10 Security fencing ✓ - - 1 5 5
(storage tank) vandalism following unauthorized overall crime rates are low in the
C
access to the storage tank (Y) jurisdiction
Active
Field inspections indicate that pipe
Contaminants (e.g. soil, groundwater) implementation
repair procedures are seldom complied
Distribution enter an open section of replacement M of the standard
High
High
6 5 4 20 with. Customer register historically - ✓ - 4 4 16
(piped network) pipe in the repair trench (X) because A operating
shows a spike in dirty water complaints
of unsanitary repair procedures (Y) procedures for
following pipe repairs.
pipe repair
Water at the household is

User level (user contaminated (X) because of poor No existing control
High
High
8 M 4 4 16 Not applicable - - - 4 4 16
premises) cleaning and maintenance of rooftop measure
storage tanks by householders (Y)
A: acceptability hazard; C: chemical hazard; M: microbial hazard; Q: quantity-related hazard.

* Based on the example provided in Table 4.3.
Annexes 133
Reflecting more than a decade of global practitioner
experience to help ensure resilient and equitable access
to safe drinking-water
Water safety planning is a proactive risk assessment and risk management This second edition reflects more than 10 years of practical experience with the
approach that encompasses all stages in a water supply, from catchment to global application of water safety planning since the first edition was published.
consumer. It is recognized as the most effective means of consistently ensuring It also streamlines guidance on the integration of climate resilience and equity
the safety of a drinking-water supply in the WHO Guidelines for drinking-water into the water safety planning approach, to help support access to safely
quality (the Guidelines). This Water safety plan manual provides practical managed drinking-water services for all users, despite growing uncertainties
guidance to support development and implementation of water safety planning from a changing climate.
in accordance with the principles presented in the Guidelines.
For more information, contact:

Water, Sanitation, Hygiene and Health
World Health Organization
20 Avenue Appia
1211 Geneva 27
Switzerland
[email protected]
https://www.who.int/health-topics/water-sanitation-and-hygiene-wash

Water Safety Plan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Water Safety Plan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Water Safety Plan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Water safety

Part I - Getting the most from this manual 1

MODULE 1 ASSEMBLING THE WSP TEAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

MODULE 2 DESCRIBING THE SYSTEM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

MODULE 4 VALIDATING EXISTING CONTROL MEASURES AND ASSESSING RISKS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

MODULE 5 PLANNING FOR IMPROVEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

MODULE 6 MONITORING CONTROL MEASURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

MODULE 7 VERIFYING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF WATER SAFETY PLANNING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

MODULE 9 STRENGTHENING WSP SUPPORTING PROGRAMMES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

MODULE 10 REVIEWING AND UPDATING THE WSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

Part IV - Toolbox 113

Hadisu Alhassan, Ibrahim Basweti, Dan Deere,

Adam Ali, Paul Byleveld, John Dennis,

Brenda Ampomah, Siao Yun Chang, Arnt Diener, formerly

Maria Sonabel S Anarna, Patrick Collins, Mamadou Djerma,

Arturo B Fernando, Koji Kosaka, Kizito Masinde,

Giuliana Ferrero, Waltaji Kutane, Guy Mbayo,

Emanuele Ferretti, Pawan Labhasetwar, National Environmental Raquel Mendes,

Faustina Gomez, John Leamy, Alejo Molinari,

Jim Graham, Yared Legesse, Teofilo Monteiro,

María Gunnarsdóttir, Luca Lucentini, Jacqueline Wairimu Muthura,

Alejandro Iriburo, Margaret Macauley, Solomon Nzioka,

Safo Kalandarov, Shamsul Gafur Mahmud, Grace Olutope Oluwasanya,

Susan Kilani, Dominique Maison, Patrick O’Sullivan,

Bettina Rickert, Raja Ram Pote Shrestha, Sujithra Weragoda,

Mohammad Said Al Hmaidi, Water Services Dai Simazaki, Matthew Whitelaw,

ERP emergency response plan

FMECA failure mode, effects and criticality analysis

HAZOP hazard and operability analysis

ISO International Organization for Standardization

IWA International Water Association

NGO nongovernmental organization

SOP standard operating procedure

WHO World Health Organization

WSP water safety plan

Getting the most

This manual supports the management of drinking-water supplies through

The manual provides practical

2 Water safety plan manual, second edition

Part I: Getting the most from this manual 3

Disadvantaged groups must be explicitly considered if disparities in access to safe drinking-

C explicitly considering users in informal settlements when assessing risks;

4 Water safety plan manual, second edition

Part I: Getting the most from this manual 5

Water safety planning:

D understanding the complete water supply;

8 Water safety plan manual, second edition

Part II: Water safety planning - an overview and guide to success 9

10 Water safety plan manual, second edition

D is a reactive approach – any problems in drinking-water safety have

Part II: Water safety planning - an overview and guide to success 11

12 Water safety plan manual, second edition

SUCCESSFUL WATER SAFETY PLANNING PRACTICES

Part II: Water safety planning - an overview and guide to success 13

Help water suppliers to see that providing safe drinking-

14 Water safety plan manual, second edition

16 Water safety plan manual, second edition

Source: Kayser et al. (2019).

CASE STUDY II.3 SETTING WATER SAFETY PLANNING OBJECTIVES, INDIA

C water quality Improve management